Canada misses NATO 2% gdp defence spending target despite promises from Carney government

[CdnFox]

15 minutes ago, herbie said:

He just DID

 

 

No he didn't and everyone knows it.  Our own audits showed that. 

So what he's done is run back and shovelled more things we did anyway into the 'military budget'.  More trees, more road contstruction, etc etc, till he can fudge the numbers to look  that way.   Juggling the books is an age old liberal trick. If you want to say you spent money on the military you just have to redefine what 'military spending is', and suddenly magically the numbers change. 

Have you seen some of the things that made the list? it's ridiculous. But he just thinks people won't look at that they just look at the headlne

[John Johnston]

1 hour ago, Moonbox said:

I can't even call them cons.  That used to means something beyond culture war screeching and conspiracies.   

You are absolutely correct in that point. 

[ExFlyer]

44 minutes ago, CdnFox said:

No he didn't and everyone knows it.  Our own audits showed that. 

So what he's done is run back and shovelled more things we did anyway into the 'military budget'.  More trees, more road contstruction, etc etc, till he can fudge the numbers to look  that way.   Juggling the books is an age old liberal trick. If you want to say you spent money on the military you just have to redefine what 'military spending is', and suddenly magically the numbers change. 

Have you seen some of the things that made the list? it's ridiculous. But he just thinks people won't look at that they just look at the headlne

As Canada hits NATO 2% goal, Carney vows more as warfare ‘rapidly’ changes

https://globalnews.ca/news/11746906/canada-nato-allies-met-or-went-beyond-2-target/

 

Thank goodness we are finally over the Harper decline LOL

AI Overview

 

 

The Conservative government under Stephen Harper did not meet the NATO commitment of spending 2% of GDP on defence. In 2014, when NATO allies agreed to move towards the 2% target, Canada's defence spending was approximately 1% of its GDP. [1, 2, 3]

Key details regarding the Harper government's NATO spending record:

• Non-Committal Stance: While other leaders pledged to reach the 2% target within 10 years, Harper was non-committal at the 2014 summit, stating he would not engage in a "massive military expansion just for the sake of doing so".
• "Aspirational Target": Harper's office agreed to treat the 2% target as an "aspirational" goal rather than a binding commitment.
• Spending Declines: Although the Conservatives often pointed to increases in military expenditures, the defense budget was in some years smaller than in 2007, and major spending for equipment renewal declined, according to the Conference of Defence Associations.

 

[BeaverFever]

3 hours ago, Venandi said:

The difference is barrack block rooms (apartments for lack of a better word); I only counted PMQs because they have small lots where trees could actually be planted. When I did the search I specifically searched for "PMQs" but have no way of confirming that the information returned was either current or correct.

Anyway, I'm not going to debate trees with you or the appropriateness of counting them toward the 2%. It's a clever idea, it kills two birds with one stone and it's exactly the sort of thing I would have done myself since the military can't actually spend the 2% anyway.

The only difference is if I did it you likely wouldn't be defending it. At best the idea is a bit "shady" and frankly, my only real interest is in who is defending it now.

If this was a conservative play the proponents for and against planting "assault style trees" would swap... and I'd still say it was clever and I'd still call it "shady."

 

As has already been explained many times it’s not a “play”. These trees were planned years ago, before Carney and before any pledge to spend 2% and its a trivial amount of money. You guys are just desperate to find any excuse 

[BeaverFever]

1 hour ago, CdnFox said:

No he didn't and everyone knows it.  Our own audits showed that. 

So what he's done is run back and shovelled more things we did anyway into the 'military budget'.  More trees, more road contstruction, etc etc, till he can fudge the numbers to look  that way.   Juggling the books is an age old liberal trick. If you want to say you spent money on the military you just have to redefine what 'military spending is', and suddenly magically the numbers change. 

Have you seen some of the things that made the list? it's ridiculous. But he just thinks people won't look at that they just look at the headlne

Once again you show you don’t know WTF you are talking about and are back to your own bullshitting. It is NATO not Carney who confirmed we reached 2%.  
 

“Our own audit” didn’t confirm anything. There was no “audit” and nobody “confirmed” anything. 

[User]

11 minutes ago, BeaverFever said:

As has already been explained many times it’s not a “play”. These trees were planned years ago, before Carney and before any pledge to spend 2% and its a trivial amount of money. You guys are just desperate to find any excuse 

Now you are reduced to saying it is a trivial amount of money. Sure... but the point is that you repeatedly lied and denied the facts, that the trees were in fact part of a special program to plant trees, not normal landscaping that would occur anyhow, and that these trees were then counted as part of defense spending. 

It is just a simple fact. Yet you had to go on denying it and lying about it and now running away from just admitting you were wrong. 

[BeaverFever]

6 minutes ago, User said:

Now you are reduced to saying it is a trivial amount of money. Sure... but the point is that you repeatedly lied and denied the facts, that the trees were in fact part of a special program to plant trees, not normal landscaping that would occur anyhow, and that these trees were then counted as part of defense spending. 

It is just a simple fact. Yet you had to go on denying it and lying about it and now running away from just admitting you were wrong. 

I have said both things this whole time. It is trivial money and a trivial number of trees and it is  money spent by the department of national defence hemce a legitimate part of the defence budget. . And the tree program simply includes tree planted by other departments as part of their total. Not my fault you’re such a rabid brainwashed internet nutjob you can’t parse information. 

[User]

7 minutes ago, BeaverFever said:

I have said both things this whole time. It is trivial money and a trivial number of trees and it is  money spent by the department of national defence hemce a legitimate part of the defence budget. . And the tree program simply includes tree planted by other departments as part of their total. Not my fault you’re such a rabid brainwashed internet nutjob you can’t parse information. 

You ignored this part...

 

Sure... but the point is that you repeatedly lied and denied the facts, that the trees were in fact part of a special program to plant trees, not normal landscaping that would occur anyhow, and that these trees were then counted as part of defense spending. 

It is just a simple fact. Yet you had to go on denying it and lying about it and now running away from just admitting you were wrong. 

[Legato]

35 minutes ago, BeaverFever said:

Once again you show you don’t know WTF you are talking about and are back to your own bullshitting. It is NATO not Carney who confirmed we reached 2%.  
 

“Our own audit” didn’t confirm anything. There was no “audit” and nobody “confirmed” anything. 

Liberal math....

 

[Moonbox]

Another thread...and another example of User uselessly squawking about people lying when he doesn't like how the debate has gone.  

[BeaverFever]

43 minutes ago, User said:

You ignored this part...

 

Sure... but the point is that you repeatedly lied and denied the facts, that the trees were in fact part of a special program to plant trees, not normal landscaping that would occur anyhow, and that these trees were then counted as part of defense spending. 

It is just a simple fact. Yet you had to go on denying it and lying about it and now running away from just admitting you were wrong. 

I didn’t ignore that part I have repeatedly said that is a false claim of yours and explained why. Go take your meds. 

[CdnFox]

2 hours ago, ExFlyer said:

As Canada hits NATO 2% goal, Carney vows more as warfare ‘rapidly’ changes

https://globalnews.ca/news/11746906/canada-nato-allies-met-or-went-beyond-2-target/

 

Thank goodness we are finally over the Harper decline LOL

AI Overview

 

 

 

The Conservative government under Stephen Harper did not meet the NATO commitment of spending 2% of GDP on defence. In 2014, when NATO allies agreed to move towards the 2% target, Canada's defence spending was approximately 1% of its GDP. [1, 2, 3]

Key details regarding the Harper government's NATO spending record:

• Non-Committal Stance: While other leaders pledged to reach the 2% target within 10 years, Harper was non-committal at the 2014 summit, stating he would not engage in a "massive military expansion just for the sake of doing so".
• "Aspirational Target": Harper's office agreed to treat the 2% target as an "aspirational" goal rather than a binding commitment.
• Spending Declines: Although the Conservatives often pointed to increases in military expenditures, the defense budget was in some years smaller than in 2007, and major spending for equipment renewal declined, according to the Conference of Defence Associations.

 

Carney vows more!?!? YOU MEAN WE"RE GOING TO GET BUSHES AS WELL?!?!?!!?

27 minutes ago, Moonbox said:

Another thread...and another example of User uselessly squawking about people lying when he doesn't like how the debate has gone.  

Another thread another useless post by moonbox Contributing nothing whatsoever and complaining about others. The man who never starts a threat and never actually makes an intelligent point and only whines about other people.

What a broken little man you are. Your whole purpose here is to derail threads and contribute nothing

[CdnFox]

20 minutes ago, BeaverFever said:

I didn’t ignore that part I have repeatedly said that is a false claim of yours and explained why. Go take your meds. 

But you are ignoring that part. I posted references and proof and so did he.

It's easy to pretend that you've increased spending in the military by simply redefining what military spending is. And that to a large degree is what happened.

They changed the coast guard to being a military spending. They changed tree planting and signage and a bunch of other things that really aren't military into military spending. And no we're not talking about planting a few trees on military property either.

It's like I said before. Where are all these new guns and new planes and new tanks and new boats and new things that he supposedly spending all these billions on? Do our soldiers have anti-aircraft systems yet? Are they practicing even as we speak in their new armored vehicles?

How much of this military equipment will he be giving to the Ukraine?

I'm sure he did spend some new money, supposedly they were all getting raises and such and I would hope that that's happened by now. But we're not at 2% military spending and I think you and I both know it. At least not the way normal people would describe military spending

[WestCanMan]

Carney: "ELBOWS UP EVERYONE! WE'RE SIGNING THE EUROPE-CANADA DEFENCE PACT BECAUSE WE CAN'T TRUST AMERICA, SO WE'RE ALL GONNA PAY 5% OF OUR GDP ON THE MILITARY!!!!!"

Also Carney: "Uhhhh, what can I say? The WH has tasty pillows...😅 Also, we're gonna spend less than half as much on the military as I said we would. But the overall budget is still WAAAYYYY over 😂. Was there ever any doubt I was lying though? I mean, I haven't told the truth about a single one of my promises yet. Not one. At some point you just gotta admit that it's actually your own fault if you believe me."

[John Stone]

Slippery move recently by the Canadian government integrating the Canadian Coast Guard (CCG) into the Department of National Defense - which included its budget ..... if only the CCG had a larger budget? 

Basically akin to  rearranging the deck chairs on the Titanic. 

There is a rumor that the Canadian Forces will be completely outfitted with state-of-the-art tanks by 2035 tho. 

 

[Moonbox]

40 minutes ago, CdnFox said:

What a broken little man you are. Your whole purpose here is to derail threads and contribute nothing

It's fascinating how you failed to even have the briefest moment of self-reflection before you decided it was a good idea to criticize anyone else for thread derailment.  🤦‍♂️

[CdnFox]

2 hours ago, BeaverFever said:

Once again you show you don’t know WTF you are talking about and are back to your own bullshitting. It is NATO not Carney who confirmed we reached 2%.  

And where did they get the information from? Do you think they showed up and demanded to see the receipts or something? It was based on information that was sent by Canada. And I'm quite certain that they're happy to accept it without an awful lot of thought at the moment

You have to be 17 different types of stupid to think that NATO actually audited our books. They're relying on what they were sent by Carney. And again, I'm sure there are many things in there that technically meet the definition of military spending as laid out by NATO but simply aren't.

The coast guard for example. We've always had a multi-billion dollar coast guard budget. So they rolled that into military spending to up the numbers.  Did any new money get spent? Nopers!  but now our military spending went up.  Yay. 

 

Your first instinct is always to defend the liberals defend the liberals defend the liberals. You need to stop and listen once in awhile and actually think before you reply.

7 minutes ago, Moonbox said:

It's fascinating how you failed to even have the briefest moment of self-reflection before you decided it was a good idea to criticize anyone else for thread derailment.  🤦‍♂️

Kid you are the one that derails threads. I don't think I ever remember you jumping into a conversation and actually offering intelligent commentary or viewpoint. Whenever I see you you're jumping into attack somebody and derail the thread. Just as you did here.

But like most lefties and liberals 90% of what you accuse others of is just a confession in the end on your part

[ExFlyer]

57 minutes ago, CdnFox said:

Carney vows more!?!? YOU MEAN WE"RE GOING TO GET BUSHES AS WELL?!?!?!!?

 

Harper hated the military. The Liberals were the ones that got the military what they need. 

The Conservative government under Stephen Harper did not meet the NATO commitment of spending 2% of GDP on defence. In 2014, when NATO allies agreed to move towards the 2% target, Canada's defence spending was approximately 1% of its GDP. [1, 2, 3]

Key details regarding the Harper government's NATO spending record:

• Non-Committal Stance: While other leaders pledged to reach the 2% target within 10 years, Harper was non-committal at the 2014 summit, stating he would not engage in a "massive military expansion just for the sake of doing so".
• "Aspirational Target": Harper's office agreed to treat the 2% target as an "aspirational" goal rather than a binding commitment.
• Spending Declines: Although the Conservatives often pointed to increases in military expenditures, the defense budget was in some years smaller than in 2007, and major spending for equipment renewal declined, according to the Conference of Defence Associations.

51 minutes ago, WestCanMan said:

Carney: "ELBOWS UP EVERYONE! ...

Get over it. 

That slogan went away after the election...it only lives in the minds of the LOSER conservatives LOL

[ExFlyer]

43 minutes ago, John Stone said:

Slippery move recently by the Canadian government integrating the Canadian Coast Guard (CCG) into the Department of National Defense - which included its budget ..... if only the CCG had a larger budget? 

Basically akin to  rearranging the deck chairs on the Titanic. 

There is a rumor that the Canadian Forces will be completely outfitted with state-of-the-art tanks by 2035 tho. 

 

Actually, integrating the Coast Guard into the military will give them more than just fisheries and lighthouse replenishment duties. It can mean the coast guard with their ice breakers can be used for sovereignty duties in the North and drug interdiction tasks off our coasts. 

It is really not a bad change.

[Legato]

15 minutes ago, ExFlyer said:

Harper hated the military. The Liberals were the ones that got the military what they need. 

The Conservative government under Stephen Harper did not meet the NATO commitment of spending 2% of GDP on defence. In 2014, when NATO allies agreed to move towards the 2% target, Canada's defence spending was approximately 1% of its GDP. [1, 2, 3]

Key details regarding the Harper government's NATO spending record:

• Non-Committal Stance: While other leaders pledged to reach the 2% target within 10 years, Harper was non-committal at the 2014 summit, stating he would not engage in a "massive military expansion just for the sake of doing so".
• "Aspirational Target": Harper's office agreed to treat the 2% target as an "aspirational" goal rather than a binding commitment.
• Spending Declines: Although the Conservatives often pointed to increases in military expenditures, the defense budget was in some years smaller than in 2007, and major spending for equipment renewal declined, according to the Conference of Defence Associations.

Get over it. 

That slogan went away after the election...it only lives in the minds of the LOSER conservatives LOL

Harpers gone, again, Harpers gone.

[CdnFox]

17 minutes ago, ExFlyer said:

Actually, integrating the Coast Guard into the military will give them more than just fisheries and lighthouse replenishment duties. It can mean the coast guard with their ice breakers can be used for sovereignty duties in the North and drug interdiction tasks off our coasts. 

It is really not a bad change.

I agree that it's not that bad of change. It is feasible to argue that in some ways the coast guard is sort of militaristic or should tie into that more so than being just a separate police rescue force, sort of kind of.  So i don't think it's TOO slimy or anything, it's reasonably fair to do that. Regardless of the icebreakers which they could have used either way. 

But.  It doesn't represent new military spending.  It just doesn't.  It's just renaming existing spending. So when Carney claims he's "INCREASED" military spending and includes that, i think even you have to agree that's really not a true statement. He just renamed existing spending. 

[User]

1 hour ago, Moonbox said:

Another thread...and another example of User uselessly squawking about people lying when he doesn't like how the debate has gone.  

Another thread where I have repeatedly pointed out facts to prove my point that @BeaverFever cowardly runs from and lies about. 

You ignore all of that, though. 

35 minutes ago, Moonbox said:

It's fascinating how you failed to even have the briefest moment of self-reflection before you decided it was a good idea to criticize anyone else for thread derailment.  🤦‍♂️

Did you take any time to actually review how Beaver was being dishonest before criticizing me for calling him dishonest?

 

[User]

1 hour ago, BeaverFever said:

I didn’t ignore that part I have repeatedly said that is a false claim of yours and explained why. Go take your meds. 

Yes, I have pointed this out to you over and over again. You run away like the dishonestly cowardly liar you are. 

 

[suds]

1 hour ago, CdnFox said:

They changed the coast guard to being a military spending. They changed tree planting and signage and a bunch of other things that really aren't military into military spending. And no we're not talking about planting a few trees on military property either.

 

[Moonbox]

30 minutes ago, User said:

Another thread where I have repeatedly pointed out facts to prove my point that @BeaverFever cowardly runs from and lies about. 

You ignore all of that, though. 

Too bad this is what you say this every time anyone disagrees with you.  Somewhere between the first and the 1000th time you said this, you lost the last shred of intellectual credibility.

It's honestly frightening how little self-awareness you guys have.  

Edited March 26 by Moonbox