CKA Forums
Login 
canadian forums
bottom
 
 
Canadian Forums

Author Topic Options
Offline
CKA Uber
CKA Uber
 Vancouver Canucks
User avatar
Profile
Posts: 29957
PostPosted: Fri Mar 10, 2017 12:38 pm
 


Title: Officials to review how Canada, NATO members calculate defence spending
Category: Military
Posted By: Freakinoldguy
Date: 2017-03-10 11:27:39
Canadian


Offline
CKA Uber
CKA Uber


GROUP_AVATAR
User avatar
Profile
Posts: 14747
PostPosted: Fri Mar 10, 2017 12:38 pm
 


It doesn't matter how some countries are funding NATO what matters is that according to the original and current funding model we're not spending the 2% we promised in 1949 and have only met or exceeded that percentage intermittently.

So they can try and spin apples into oranges all they want but we've been remiss in our obligations more often than not and it's time we started to pay our fair share. Here's a list of charts that show just how the members have done when it comes to paying their fair share.

https://www.google.ca/search?q=nato+fun ... VHjm-9aiEM:

This isn't political or which party did what, it's about the will to do what's right and yes, the "Conservatives" are just as responsible for underfunding as the Liberals. People decry the fact that Putin's Russia is running wild and demand that someone stand up to him but if we aren't willing to properly pay for that ability there's zero chance he's going to stop being the aggressor. We can't rely on the Americans for everything anymore. They've got a new regime that seems to be intent on ensuring they aren't the ones paying a lions share of NATO's bills and they seem to be more than willing to pull out of NATO if all the countries not living up to their commitments don't get the shit together and pay their own way.

So, the current Gov't can try and use creative accounting methods to fudge the amount of funding we contribute to NATO which will likely make it look better in the short term than it really is but, I seriously doubt we'll be able to fool anyone for long and at some point we have to have to pay the piper.


Offline
CKA Elite
CKA Elite
 Montreal Canadiens
User avatar
Profile
Posts: 4914
PostPosted: Fri Mar 10, 2017 1:31 pm
 


I completely agree with your comments, no government has come close to actually spending a dime on the military. They are all just giving lip service to those who serve our nation.


Offline
CKA Uber
CKA Uber


GROUP_AVATAR
User avatar
Profile
Posts: 10730
PostPosted: Fri Mar 10, 2017 1:46 pm
 


In case some people forgot, it's not 1949 anymore.
Should we be spending more on our military? Yes.
Should we double spending on it? No.


Offline
CKA Elite
CKA Elite
 Montreal Canadiens
User avatar
Profile
Posts: 4914
PostPosted: Fri Mar 10, 2017 1:55 pm
 


no one said we should double it, but we are what .9%? it should be 2%, I would be happy with 1.5%.


Offline
CKA Uber
CKA Uber
 Montreal Canadiens
User avatar
Profile
Posts: 33691
PostPosted: Fri Mar 10, 2017 3:09 pm
 


$1:
Prime Minister Justin Trudeau appeared to all but dismiss the two per cent target during a visit to Germany last month, saying: “There are many ways of evaluating one’s contribution to NATO.”


No, he did dismiss it.

The Euroweenies have basically done the same.


Trump can do what he wants now.


I hope we have some answer for the Russian flybys up North that are coming.



uwish uwish:
no one said we should double it, but we are what .9%? it should be 2%, I would be happy with 1.5%.


The commitment was for 2%. It's either keep that, or get everyone
else to change to 1.5%

And good luck selling it to the US.



Image


http://www.spiegel.de/international/wor ... 08664.html


Offline
CKA Uber
CKA Uber


GROUP_AVATAR
User avatar
Profile
Posts: 22434
PostPosted: Wed Mar 15, 2017 8:38 pm
 


I've never understood what the fascination with 2% of GDP is - it sounds like a fair goal, but it isn't a truly fair representation of capability or spending in my books.

While I agree Canada needs to spend much more on defence ($30 billion/year would be a good start), the $20 billion we spend per year dwarfs Poland's $10 billion or Estonia's $9 billion. I'd also we have better-trained and equipped militaries than those nations too.

Image


Offline
Junior Member
Junior Member
Profile
Posts: 90
PostPosted: Wed Mar 15, 2017 8:48 pm
 


Freakinoldguy Freakinoldguy:
It doesn't matter how some countries are funding NATO what matters is that according to the original and current funding model we're not spending the 2% we promised in 1949 and have only met or exceeded that percentage intermittently.

So they can try and spin apples into oranges all they want but we've been remiss in our obligations more often than not and it's time we started to pay our fair share. Here's a list of charts that show just how the members have done when it comes to paying their fair share.

https://www.google.ca/search?q=nato+fun ... VHjm-9aiEM:

This isn't political or which party did what, it's about the will to do what's right and yes, the "Conservatives" are just as responsible for underfunding as the Liberals. People decry the fact that Putin's Russia is running wild and demand that someone stand up to him but if we aren't willing to properly pay for that ability there's zero chance he's going to stop being the aggressor. We can't rely on the Americans for everything anymore. They've got a new regime that seems to be intent on ensuring they aren't the ones paying a lions share of NATO's bills and they seem to be more than willing to pull out of NATO if all the countries not living up to their commitments don't get the shit together and pay their own way.

So, the current Gov't can try and use creative accounting methods to fudge the amount of funding we contribute to NATO which will likely make it look better in the short term than it really is but, I seriously doubt we'll be able to fool anyone for long and at some point we have to have to pay the piper.

Good post, and you actually made me think about this for a bit. We may have agreed to 2% in '49, but the Russians had just detonated a hydrogen bomb, had fleets of long-range bombers that could come over the Arctic, so it was a much scarier time. I'm not sure how much relevance NATO has anymore, hence am reluctant to make it a spending priority.


Offline
CKA Moderator
CKA Moderator
User avatar
Profile
Posts: 42940
PostPosted: Thu Mar 16, 2017 5:21 am
 


prairiechickin prairiechickin:
I'm not sure how much relevance NATO has anymore, hence am reluctant to make it a spending priority.


Look at Georgia, Ukraine, Poland, Latvia, and Lithuania and the Russians dream of expansion is clear. NATO has as much relevance today as it ever had.


Offline
CKA Uber
CKA Uber


GROUP_AVATAR
User avatar
Profile
Posts: 22434
PostPosted: Thu Mar 16, 2017 5:31 am
 


prairiechickin prairiechickin:
Good post, and you actually made me think about this for a bit. We may have agreed to 2% in '49, but the Russians had just detonated a hydrogen bomb, had fleets of long-range bombers that could come over the Arctic, so it was a much scarier time. I'm not sure how much relevance NATO has anymore, hence am reluctant to make it a spending priority.



Actually, the Harper government agreed to the 2% goal:

$1:
While all NATO members agreed in 2014 to work towards spending two per cent of their gross domestic product, or GDP, on defence, only five have reached that goal.


As for NATO's relevance, see DrC's comment above.


Offline
CKA Uber
CKA Uber


GROUP_AVATAR
User avatar
Profile
Posts: 10730
PostPosted: Thu Mar 16, 2017 9:53 am
 


$1:
Look at Georgia, Ukraine, Poland, Latvia, and Lithuania and the Russians dream of expansion is clear. NATO has as much relevance today as it ever had.


Yes do. Other than Poland the rush to get the others into NATO has proven to Russians they were right to fear the West. They were all historically in the Russian sphere of influence and only Poland deserved membership. Poking the sleeping bear with a stick and being surprised at the result, more or less.
What you do with what you spend is more relevant, the world and the threats have changed. Is it necessary to spend as much as someone else says you should so you can protect yourself from stolen Toyota trucks with half billion dollar stealth planes?


Offline
CKA Uber
CKA Uber
 Montreal Canadiens
User avatar
Profile
Posts: 33691
PostPosted: Thu Mar 16, 2017 2:23 pm
 


herbie herbie:
$1:
Look at Georgia, Ukraine, Poland, Latvia, and Lithuania and the Russians dream of expansion is clear. NATO has as much relevance today as it ever had.


Yes do. Other than Poland the rush to get the others into NATO has proven to Russians they were right to fear the West. They were all historically in the Russian sphere of influence and only Poland deserved membership. Poking the sleeping bear with a stick and being surprised at the result, more or less.


Who are you and what have you done with herbie ?


Post new topic  Reply to topic  [ 12 posts ] 



Who is online

Users browsing this forum: rickc and 15 guests




 
     
All logos and trademarks in this site are property of their respective owner.
The comments are property of their posters, all the rest © Canadaka.net. Powered by © phpBB.