[aircanada2000]

A big pet peeve of mine is when people say that Canada is not doing enough internationally. I for one believe that we are doing our part. Just look at our reputation. You can walk around with the Maple Leaf all over the world and be treated with respect.

If we increase our defence spending, this will mean we will have to cut all our social programs. This will make us like the United States. Clearly we do not want that. Last time I checked, health, education, and poverty were far bigger issues. Besides, if we intervene too much it could backfire. Just look at the UK and USA. Our foreign policy should be more like Sweden, Finland, France, Belgium and Switzerland.

[ridenrain]

Why can't we have a military and social programs? Most of the countries you mention spend much more than we do on defence, and Sweden, Finland and Switzerland also have manditory conscription.

Maybe if we didn't send China some $65 million dollars or piss away money with Sponsorgate or the gun registry, we could do both?

link

[Bigboy]

ridenrain wrote:

Why can't we have a military and social programs? Most of the countries you mention spend much more than we do on defence, and Sweden, Finland and Switzerland also have manditory conscription.

Maybe if we didn't send China some $65 million dollars or piss away money with Sponsorgate or the gun registry, we could do both?

link

I agree if we just had healthcare and didnt start more social programs and have everything half assed like the Libs seem to like. But we do more then the countrys listed i think i could be wrong. The main problem is we need to make as much of military equipment as we can so alot of money comes back to us and it creates work.

In nato i think the only countrys that spend more then us in defence have this figured out already

[bootlegga]

ridenrain wrote:

Why can't we have a military and social programs? Most of the countries you mention spend much more than we do on defence, and Sweden, Finland and Switzerland also have manditory conscription.

Maybe if we didn't send China some $65 million dollars or piss away money with Sponsorgate or the gun registry, we could do both?

link

This is a total red herring.

Because $300 million was embezzled by Liberal party supporters we can't afford new $1 billion ships or heavy lift transport planes? That's BS...with an annual federal budget of almost $160 billion, the sponsorship scandal is a drop in the bucket. It's like getting mad at your spouse who makes $30,000 a year for giving a co-worker $5 for coffee. Don't get me wrong, it pisses me off that those retards stole $300 million, but this does not in any way prevent us from spending money on defence.

Our ability to spend money on defence is influenced by the voters, and for the last decade, voters wanted a tax 'holiday' from defence spending and they got it. In CBC/MacLeans study in 1995, only 1% of participants felt it was an issue. Instead, unemployment (31%), the deficit (15%) and national unity (9%) were the top 3 issues. I for one wish Canadians had cared back in the 1990s, but they didn't. Now, many Canadians realize it's time to pay the piper, hence the increases in defence spending in the coming years.

[bootlegga]

aircanada2000 wrote:

A big pet peeve of mine is when people say that Canada is not doing enough internationally. I for one believe that we are doing our part. Just look at our reputation. You can walk around with the Maple Leaf all over the world and be treated with respect.

If we increase our defence spending, this will mean we will have to cut all our social programs. This will make us like the United States. Clearly we do not want that. Last time I checked, health, education, and poverty were far bigger issues. Besides, if we intervene too much it could backfire. Just look at the UK and USA. Our foreign policy should be more like Sweden, Finland, France, Belgium and Switzerland.

One thing people don't realize about our international influence is that the reason it was so much bigger in the postwar period was because, except for the USA and USSR, the industrialized world was a smoking crater and unable to produce much. No wonder the US and Canadian GDPs skyrocketed...and no wonder we were able to 'punch above our weight' so to speak. But by the early 1960s, Western Europe was back up and running and doing well, hence the decline in our influence.

Of course, if we had kept our defence spending higher in the 1970s, we might have had a little more influence around the world. Then again, we deployed our troops all over the world for the UN and had a high profile. Nowadays, our troops are too stretched because of UN missions, NATO missions, humanitarian missions, disaster relief, etc.

I don't know if we are doing as much as we could but we do contribute. I for one would like it if we contributed more, but that would be for UN operations and not US-led invasions. This can be done in a variety of fashions, not with just defence spending. Lowering trade barriers, increasing developmental aid, and lowering debt can all work very well in helping the third world dig themselves out of the hole they are in today.

[ridenrain]

While I would agree that the scale of expenditures is very different, those are just some of the examples. Our Gov has it's spending priorities all out of whack and the military has been the loosing party for too long.

Canadians can't just pass off the blame for under-funding the military by just saying "it's what Canadians wanted", regardless of what MacLeans said. Even the worst Liberal apologist here would agree that their gov. did some things that the Canadian people didn't support. You can't have it both ways, and I expect any government to set aside for important things like national defence. (this is one of my pet peeves)

There were brief spots of Conservatives too and they tried to make changes, within their narrow abilities. We can add the $500 million to the tally, when Jean Cretien cancelled the helo. deal. If we had kept that order, we would have helo's for Afghanistan, instead of trying to make do with the sea kings.

I think the leadership of Canada is having trouble dealing with how insignificant we have become on the world stage, and are trying to get back using the blood of our troops. We can rant and rave against the evil American War machine but I'd bet 99/100 CDN troops would rather be part of that, than another under-funded, under-lead, UN warm & fuzzy tour.

[DerbyX]

The depletion of our military doesn't fall directly at the feet of the Liberals. Useless blaming will solve nothing. Yes Chretien did cancel the helo deal and I was non to thrilled about that. He did if I recall bring about our new "halifax" class frigates which are very advanced electronically and well suited for their task. They have invested in new ground vehicles (LAV III). I'd like nothing better then to gov't to invest hard cash into a larger & more powerful navy (complete with nuclear subs), advanced interceptors & attack helicopters and a larger standing army. We have our deficit under control now though. Should the gov't take out a loan to purchase equipment (adding to our national debt) in order to not cut funding to our cherished healthcare & social programs. I'd agree to that. I'd agree to paying a bit extra in taxes if I knew it was going to go to those purchases. The question is, how many other Canadians will agree with me?

[ridenrain]

I disagree on both.
The Liberals were in almost all of the time, so almost all of the blame must rest upon their weary heads. I'd agree that you didn't see protestors demanding a stronger military but you did see numerous military publications warning of the rust out and the pending personnel crunches.

I'm not for paying any more taxes until we see some accountability. Millions are wasted in numerous ministries but it's political suicide to stop it.

What Canada really needs is a firm foreign policy. If we're going to support more UN missions, and I hope we don't, we need to specialize for that task. If we expect our army to be police in green, then that also requires special training and equipment. All and any of the above require a firm political direction, and that's been our biggest failing.

[DerbyX]

Quote:

The Liberals were in almost all of the time, so almost all of the blame must rest upon their weary heads. I'd agree that you didn't see protestors demanding a stronger military but you did see numerous military publications warning of the rust out and the pending personnel crunches.

Progressive conservatives. 'Nuff said. You can't just lump them in with the Liberals and wash your hands of them.

[BartSimpson]

The challenge of securing the Arctic and the Northwest Passage from the rest of the world will require Canada to step up to the plate and invest in a fleet with Arctic Ocean capabilities and the forward deployment airfields in the north will have to be dialed up into actual bases as opposed to just adjuncts of bases.

Canada cannot secure her northern approaches and territories without investing in her forces.

Better to prepare for this new dynamic in Canada's defence and deter any potential problems. Deterrence is far, far cheaper than the other options.

[bootlegga]

ridenrain wrote:

While I would agree that the scale of expenditures is very different, those are just some of the examples. Our Gov has it's spending priorities all out of whack and the military has been the loosing party for too long.

Canadians can't just pass off the blame for under-funding the military by just saying "it's what Canadians wanted", regardless of what MacLeans said. Even the worst Liberal apologist here would agree that their gov. did some things that the Canadian people didn't support. You can't have it both ways, and I expect any government to set aside for important things like national defence. (this is one of my pet peeves)

There were brief spots of Conservatives too and they tried to make changes, within their narrow abilities. We can add the $500 million to the tally, when Jean Cretien cancelled the helo. deal. If we had kept that order, we would have helo's for Afghanistan, instead of trying to make do with the sea kings.

I think the leadership of Canada is having trouble dealing with how insignificant we have become on the world stage, and are trying to get back using the blood of our troops. We can rant and rave against the evil American War machine but I'd bet 99/100 CDN troops would rather be part of that, than another under-funded, under-lead, UN warm & fuzzy tour.

My point was that a few government boondoggles doesn't prevent defence spending. The will of the people does. If Canadians wanted more defence spending, then the PCs would still exist instead of being virtually wiped out in 1993. That was one reason why people chose the Liberals over PCs, like it or not.

I'd have to disagree with the Conservatives trying to 'make changes' line. They wrote a white paper (1988) specifically calling for a fleet of nuclear submarines, then balked when they found out how much they cost. Sticker shock isn't something that only the Liberals can be accused of.

And the Liberals cancelling that helo deal pissed me off, but at least that's one point you can't fault Chretien on. He said if he was elected he would cancel it and he did. Go figure, a politician would kept his word.

Too bad he didn't keep it on so many other things like the GST...

Quote:

You can't have it both ways

Sure the Liberals did some things that some very vocal minorities didn't want, but the majority of Canadians supports gay marriage, marijuana decriminialization, gun control, and social programs. Now I'm not writing off those minorities, but unfortunately, that's the way democracy goes, the majority gets what it wants, although a vocal minority may add some stipulations to the final draft of the law.

I find it funny that the Liberal bashers in this country rail on and on about the Liberals and their wanton excess and continual re-election, but never seem to notice that provinces like Alberta have a virtual dictatorship, with the same party running the province for DECADES, not just a couple of terms. The PCs here in Alberta have squandered BILLIONS of dollars (on a much smaller annual budget too) on things like Prinicpal Trust, the Alberta Treasury Branch loans to WEM, energy deregulation, etc, but because the left in Alberta is a small minority in Edmonton (30% or so), people outside the province don't even realize that not all of us are gun-toting, truck driving cowboys who want 2 tier health care. If Albertans had $100 for every bad loan the PCs have made to corporations here in Alberta, none of us would need a job! Of course I jest, but the point is obvious, scandal/waste is not a Liberal monopoly.

Like you said, you can't have it both ways. Either you like democracy despite its shortcomings, or we are in need of a different governmental system NATIONWIDE, not just in Ottawa. I for one will accept Klein if there is a Federal Liberal government to restrain him from doing really stupid things.

And as for the statement that 99/100 CDN troops would rather be part of the US military than our current forces it is totally irrelevant. That is why we live in a democracy and not a military dictatorship. The views of the troops are important, but no more so than the other 30+ million Canadians.

Basing the national defence needs on the basis of 60,000+ troops is like basing your health care dollars on what the doctors/nurses association wants. Of course they would prefer things their way...or that the person who decides on your next raise at work is you.

You're doing a great job Bill!
Thanks Bill!
I'd like a 50% raise Bill!
Sounds fine by me, Bill!
See ya next year Bill!

I've said it before and I'm sure I'll have to say it again (and again and again and again) but if the Conservatives reflected the views of a majority of Canadians, they would be running things, not sitting as the Opposition. The fact is that Canada is shifting to the left. Now the right may not like this, but they will have to accept it, just like the left is forced to deal with Klein in Alberta...left leaning parties took over 50% of the vote in the last election. If the BQ wasn't on the scene, that would have been even higher as Quebec traditionally was a Liberal stronghold. By contrast, the Conservatives didn't even manage 30% of the vote.

http://www.cbc.ca/canadavotes/

http://www.ctv.ca/mini/election2004/

I used to be a hawk and support the right but I grew to realize they only cared about you if you had a couple of million bucks in your bank account. That's why since 1993, I've voted Liberal. I hate that they cheap out on the armed forces but its a trade off so that we can have a country that has a decent social safety net and is a great place to live in.

But this is a moot issue as defence spending is projected to rise to $18 Billion in the next five years. And that is with a Liberal government. If somehow, the Conservatives can find a decent leader (MacKay is my bet) and moderate their beliefs, they might actually take the next election and increase it even more.

[BartSimpson]

bootlegga wrote:

And as for the statement that 99/100 CDN troops would rather be part of the US military than our current forces it is totally irrelevant. That is why we live in a democracy and not a military dictatorship. The views of the troops are important, but no more so than the other 30+ million Canadians.

Since Canada is moving towards a gun ban the views of the troops will inevitably be very important as they will be the ones with the guns.

"Power comes down the barrel of a gun." - Mao Tse Tung

[bootlegga]

BartSimpson wrote:

bootlegga wrote:

And as for the statement that 99/100 CDN troops would rather be part of the US military than our current forces it is totally irrelevant. That is why we live in a democracy and not a military dictatorship. The views of the troops are important, but no more so than the other 30+ million Canadians.

Since Canada is moving towards a gun ban the views of the troops will inevitably be very important as they will be the ones with the guns.

"Power comes down the barrel of a gun." - Mao Tse Tung

The American imperialists and their running dogs, the Chinese reactionaries, will not resign themselves to defeat in this land. - Mao Tse Tung

The longer the US aggressors remain in those places, the tighter the nooses round their necks will become. - Mao Tse Tung

After the enemies with guns have been wiped out, there will still be enemies without guns.- Mao Tse Tung

The atom bomb is a paper tiger which the US reactionaries use to scare people.- Mao Tse Tung

My point...maybe quoting Mao isn't such a great idea. Quote someone who isn't a wacko.

[Laconfir]

ridenrain wrote:

Sponsorgate

Don't ever use that word again.. It is a sad weak little word... "gate" as a suffix for anything is so annoying now.

As far as 'doing enough internationally', I'd agree. We do help out a lot. But I've always been a firm believer that we should help out those at home before we start putting all our efforts towards something overseas such as the campaigns for AIDS in Africa, Dept Relief for Africa, etc. That shit is so annoying anyway. What needs to be done is an actual Western coalition needs to go in to many of these African countries and straighten them out, as many of the governments and militaries just get in the way of humanitarian efforts to begin with.

I know it's a lot more complicated then that, but when you're dealing with an Idi Amin then you can't expect $100 million in relief to do much before more victims are created.

[Laconfir]

bootlegga wrote:

Nowadays, our troops are too stretched because of UN missions, NATO missions, humanitarian missions, disaster relief, etc.

That's untrue. I hate it when people say our forces are "too stretched" or all being used or whatever BS they say. It's untrue, plain and simple. Canada has 55,000 Armed Forces personnel, give or take a few. (For the "pro-military spending" arguement, by comparison, the USA has 55,000 Special Operations Forces)

DND/CF Current Operations wrote:

More than 1,500 Canadian soldiers, sailors and Air Force personnel are deployed overseas on operational missions. On any given day, about 8,000 Canadian Forces members - one third of our deployable force - are preparing for, engaged in or returning from an overseas mission.

That is from the DND page, highlighting their current operations. In total, there are 17 operations that the CF are taking part in around the world, our most deployed at OP ATHENA (950 in Afghanistan), the second most in OP ALTAIR (247 in the Persian Gulf).

In Afghanistan, our largest deployment, there isn't even enough for a full Battalion (400-1500). We're hardly being "stretched thin" by our overseas commitments.

That isn't to say that Canada couldn't use a reconstruction of it's military and a rather large recruiting drive. Considering that in a mechanized infantry division of say, 16,000 soldiers, there can be as little as 1000 actual infantry. Makes Canada's 55,000 seem a lot smaller.