[Newsbot]

Title: Canada's defence spending hits new lows under Trudeau | Furey | Canada | News |
Category: Military
Posted By: Freakinoldguy
Date: 2017-04-14 14:06:23
Canadian

[Freakinoldguy]

The world is a dangerous place so, I'm grateful that Mr. Trudeau isn't spending our tax dollars on silly things like the military when, it could be much better used to welcome criminal immigrants at our borders who, will bring with them their love of freedom, justice, fair play and a sudden new found respect for Canada and it's laws.

But don't worry folks. military or not, if we perceive a threat to our sovereignty we still have the fabled Lieberal Party Rainbows and Unicorns brigades to protect us from whatever evil stalks us.

(sarcasm off)

[Strutz]

You pretty much summed it up FOG. The ability of our government to prioritize seems to have been lost somewhere along the way.

0.88% ??? Unreal.

What do we have to do, maybe have a telethon to raise funds?

[bootlegga]

The problem is that defence spending in Canada does not equate to votes, so politicians of all stripes short change it to feed red meat to their base - tax cuts for Conservative voters and social programs for Liberal voters.

As much as people want to blame politicians, the blame lies squarely on Canadians' shoulders, as the politicians we elect just give us what we want. As a centrist, every election it's very tough for me to figure out who to vote for, as neither major party platform is 100% acceptable.

[peck420]

bootlegga bootlegga:

As much as people want to blame politicians, the blame lies squarely on Canadians' shoulders, as the politicians we elect just give us what we want.

So the blames lies with those that are sick of paying for the boondoggles, but not with those that created the boondoggles?

The fault lies squarely with the politicians and the DoD.

[prairiechickin]

I suspect the reason Trudeau can minimize spending on the Armed Forces is that we in Canada are not quite sure what to do with them anymore. We're not really into peacekeeping anymore, we had a few adventures in Africa and Afghanistan that produced little more that a bunch of PTSD, and now we're just kicking around NATO in case we need them. There's no clear and present danger, so our PM prefers the warm and fuzzy spending to the sort that leaves you ready for future calamity.

[peck420]

prairiechickin prairiechickin:

I suspect the reason Trudeau can minimize spending on the Armed Forces is that we in Canada are not quite sure what to do with them anymore.

It is most likely due to the easy votes it garners.

When every major procurement is a giant clusterfuck, it makes it very easy for the up and coming politico to earn votes by promising to put and end to it.

Then the new politico gets into power, shortages and capability gaps are 'discovered', and another procurement round is ordered. That, inevitably (because none of those that actually create the cluster are ever held accountable) turns into another clusterfuck, and the next politico promises to remove the issue to garner votes...and the cycle continues.

That is also inevitably followed by both politico and military members complaining about how it is the tax payer that is at fault, reducing the amount of leeway a clusterfuck will get, accelerating the every continuing cycle.

[Freakinoldguy]

bootlegga bootlegga:

The problem is that defence spending in Canada does not equate to votes, so politicians of all stripes short change it to feed red meat to their base - tax cuts for Conservative voters and social programs for Liberal voters.

As much as people want to blame politicians, the blame lies squarely on Canadians' shoulders, as the politicians we elect just give us what we want. As a centrist, every election it's very tough for me to figure out who to vote for, as neither major party platform is 100% acceptable.

I'll agree with you up to a point. In today's world, defense spending doesn't equate to votes for most democratically elected NATO gov'ts yet, those other countries have no problem spending at a minimum the 2% they pledged for their military while keeping themselves in power.

The current Canadian Gov't on the other hand apparently has no desire to honour it's commitments to it's allies nor keep it's military current, two issues which give a very strong indication that the promises made on the campaign trail were nothing more than blatant "lies" spoken to get one Mr. Trudeau elected.

$1:

We will not let Canada’s Armed Forces be shortchanged, and we will not lapse military spending from year to year. We will also reinvest in building a leaner, more agile, better-equipped military, including adequate support systems for military personnel and their families.

https://www.liberal.ca/realchange/inves ... -military/

Say's the guy who cut military funding to levels that his father only dreamed of.

Sorry, but given his statements about funding and maintaining the military there's no way you can lay the blame for this destruction of the military anywhere but where it belongs. At the feet of the current leadership.

[Freakinoldguy]

prairiechickin prairiechickin:

There's no clear and present danger, so our PM prefers the warm and fuzzy spending to the sort that leaves you ready for future calamity.

Since when it comes to world politics possesion is 10/10ths of the law you don't think we have a threat to our sovereignty from both the Americans and Russians in the Arctic?

If we want to keep the Arctic Canadian we'll need one hell of alot more resources than a couple of Inuit Rangers with WWII Lee Enfields to keep it that way.

Besides the fact we need a current military may not come down to sovereignty but to our current leaders desire to regain a place on the UN Security Council that he sees as his and his father legacy. To do that he has to do the UN's bidding and his statements about Canada being back in the peacekeeping game means he's willing to send our troops into harms way to get what he wants.

Or, how about the fact that our future peacekeeping missions will be made with the Trump administration’s particular world view in mind.

https://www.thestar.com/news/canada/201 ... ation.html

A fact which if followed through on will likely lead us into more hot zones than we thought possible.

So it would appear that Canadian Sovereignty be damned Mr. Trudeau thinks that he can basically denude our military of it's fangs while sloughing off the defense of Canada to the Americans. Which, given the volatility of the current US administration may turn out to be a major mistake.

[herbie]

$1:

If we want to keep the Arctic Canadian we'll need

Are you guys ever gonna can that bullshit?

[Freakinoldguy]

herbie herbie:

$1:

If we want to keep the Arctic Canadian we'll need

Are you guys ever gonna can that bullshit?

Nope, not as long as crap like this continues. But hey, keep turning a blind eye to the obvious since it doesn't suit your socialist agenda.

$1:

As Russia continues to boost its military presence in the Arctic, the Canadian Forces is planning to expand its Arctic training centre, turning the remote installation into a hub that can support operations, both defence- and science-oriented, year-round if needed.

$1:

Other countries are also expanding their presence in the Far North. Russia’s defence ministry recently completed a military base on an island in its territory in the Arctic Ocean. That installation, the second one in the Arctic to be built by the Russians, is designed to operate year-round and house around 150 soldiers. Russia also plans to eventually build 13 airstrips and six smaller bases in its Arctic territories as it looks to exploit minerals, gas and other natural resources in the region.

http://news.nationalpost.com/news/canad ... the-arctic

Nothing to see here folks. Those nice Russians would never try to make incursions in the arctic nor would the Danes ever try and take Hans Island.

I wonder how much of those plans for military expansion in the Arctic are being shelved by the Right to Rule party so, they can continue their relentless march to regain their rightful seat on the Security council by spending money they don't have, on people they don't know?

[bootlegga]

peck420 peck420:

bootlegga bootlegga:

As much as people want to blame politicians, the blame lies squarely on Canadians' shoulders, as the politicians we elect just give us what we want.

So the blames lies with those that are sick of paying for the boondoggles, but not with those that created the boondoggles?

The fault lies squarely with the politicians and the DoD.

No, the fault lies with Canadians, who when polled almost always place jobs/economy, tax cuts, and social programs well ahead of defence spending as priorities for the government (if they even mention defence spending at all).

Canada has the military we have because most Canadians have no direct connection to it and hence don't see it as a priority.

[bootlegga]

Freakinoldguy Freakinoldguy:

bootlegga bootlegga:

The problem is that defence spending in Canada does not equate to votes, so politicians of all stripes short change it to feed red meat to their base - tax cuts for Conservative voters and social programs for Liberal voters.

As much as people want to blame politicians, the blame lies squarely on Canadians' shoulders, as the politicians we elect just give us what we want. As a centrist, every election it's very tough for me to figure out who to vote for, as neither major party platform is 100% acceptable.

I'll agree with you up to a point. In today's world, defense spending doesn't equate to votes for most democratically elected NATO gov'ts yet, those other countries have no problem spending at a minimum the 2% they pledged for their military while keeping themselves in power.

You make it sound like Canada is the only nation not spending 2%, which as I've said many times is a totally artificial guideline.

There are only five countries that meet the 2% goal - the US and UK, which set it, Greece, which just borrows money like a drunken sailor, and Estonia and Poland, who see legitimate threats on their border.

No other country meets the 2% goal - not France, not Germany, not Italy, not Turkey, etc.

Freakinoldguy Freakinoldguy:

The current Canadian Gov't on the other hand apparently has no desire to honour it's commitments to it's allies nor keep it's military current, two issues which give a very strong indication that the promises made on the campaign trail were nothing more than blatant "lies" spoken to get one Mr. Trudeau elected.

$1:

We will not let Canada’s Armed Forces be shortchanged, and we will not lapse military spending from year to year. We will also reinvest in building a leaner, more agile, better-equipped military, including adequate support systems for military personnel and their families.

https://www.liberal.ca/realchange/inves ... -military/

In fairness to Trudeau the beatnik, that pledge was made by the previous government, not his.

And he's backtracked on other promises, such as proportional representation, so let's be realistic - he's got a list of broken promises, just like every politician in history.

I had hoped he would be different from his father, but it looks like that won't be the case unfortunately.

Freakinoldguy Freakinoldguy:

Say's the guy who cut military funding to levels that his father only dreamed of.

Sorry, but given his statements about funding and maintaining the military there's no way you can lay the blame for this destruction of the military anywhere but where it belongs. At the feet of the current leadership.

"The destruction of the military"...careful with the partisan rhetoric there.

The only way Trudeau will change is if Canadians hold his feet to the fire - reports like this one are step in that direction.

Let's hope Canadians don't get too high on legalized weed and start actually caring about the military soon.

[bootlegga]

Freakinoldguy Freakinoldguy:

prairiechickin prairiechickin:

There's no clear and present danger, so our PM prefers the warm and fuzzy spending to the sort that leaves you ready for future calamity.

Since when it comes to world politics possesion is 10/10ths of the law you don't think we have a threat to our sovereignty from both the Americans and Russians in the Arctic?

If we want to keep the Arctic Canadian we'll need one hell of alot more resources than a couple of Inuit Rangers with WWII Lee Enfields to keep it that way.

Good thing you made sure Harper kept his 2006 election promise to build three heavy armed icebreakers for the Navy then....oh wait, he reneged and changed it 4-6 patrol ships with medium icebreaking capability (good only in the summer months), none of which even got started while he was in office.

Good thing you wrote the PM when he cancelled the JSS project in 2008, then re-started it with lesser capabilities and then took a decade to get a hull laid (two years AFTER he lost the election), meaning we had to get the Chilean Navy to help us in the interim.

Good thing you got upset when Harper announced the Canada First plan, but failed to fund any part of it for a decade, meaning his government could continue tax cuts and pass the buck (quite literally) onto the next government.

Good thing you got upset when the government failed to replace our aging destroyers, putting that project off until the mid-2020s.

Good thing you held Harper's feet to the fire on building that Arctic port at Nanisivik, where we planned on forward basing our shiny new heavy, armed icebreakers, oops, I meant slushbreakers.

Yep, Trudeau is the only politician who has failed the military ever...

[JaredMilne]

peck420 peck420:

bootlegga bootlegga:

So the blames lies with those that are sick of paying for the boondoggles, but not with those that created the boondoggles?

The fault lies squarely with the politicians and the DoD.

I think what Boots is talking about isn't so much the people sick of paying for the boondoggles, but the people who are always happy to denounce tax increases and demand cuts to government spending, but always expect someone else's ox to be gored when it comes to cuts.

I have a memory of pointing this out back when I was in grade 6, and our teacher made us write protest letters to Ralph Klein about his education funding cuts as a class project. I, a twelve-year old kid with no civics experience, noted that if Klein cut education, some people were going to be screaming at him, but if he cut something else, then someone else would be screaming at him for cutting that instead. So what was Klein supposed to cut?

I wish I could remember the teacher's reply, but given that she was a far-left hippie nut, I doubt her answer would have been favourable.