Canada doesn't want to increase military spending.


Vancouverite
#1
Britain's conservative government is suggesting an increase in defence expenditures, but Canada doesn't want to do that. We're a NATO member, for crying out loud, and there is a war on in the Ukraine, which is on NATO's front door.

I'm getting more and more unimpressed by the so-called "Conservative" government.
 
Tecumsehsbones
+3
#2
Quote: Originally Posted by VancouveriteView Post

Britain's conservative government is suggesting an increase in defence expenditures, but Canada doesn't want to do that. We're a NATO member, for crying out loud, and there is a war on in the Ukraine, which is on NATO's front door.

I'm getting more and more unimpressed by the so-called "Conservative" government.

I'm failing to grasp how getting into a war 6000 miles (excuse me, 10,000 kilometres) from Canada is "defence," but I'm just a dumb Yank.
 
tay
+1
#3
Even though he (harper) hates the term 'Peace Keeping', he likes the cost of a 'Peace Keeper' role vs a costlier military role.


And I wonder just how eager our Military would be to fight for the likes of Fantino and his fellow CONS..........








Canada can talk tough because expectations of action are lower






Other Western leaders have also avoided use of the "invasion" word, except Canada, which continues to employ tough rhetoric against Moscow.


But for the U.S. and other Western countries, careful language is not surprising, particularly with politically loaded words like invasion, which can spark historical comparisons to Hitler's invasion of Poland or Saddam's invasion of Kuwait.


Meanwhile,Canada isn't subject to the same expectations of military action, allowing its officials to be more bold, Hansen said.


"It's partly the freedom of not mattering," said Hansen. "The Canadian government can shout and scream as much as it likes knowing that it doesn't really have to do anything. In contrast, Obama and [German Chancellor Angela] Merkel have to measure every word because the entire world is hanging on them and have a level of responsibility that neither Harper or Baird has or will have."




Ukraine crisis: Why the U.S. avoids calling Russia's actions an 'invasion' - World - CBC News

Quote: Originally Posted by TecumsehsbonesView Post

I'm failing to grasp how getting into a war 6000 miles (excuse me, 10,000 kilometres) from Canada is "defence," but I'm just a dumb Yank.







I recall a certain American government suggesting that they had to take the fight offshore to prevent 'them' from coming to the USA...........
 
mentalfloss
+1
#4
Thank you for finally making a good decision Harper.
 
Corduroy
+4
#5  Top Rated Post
Harper doesn't want to increase military spending now because there's an election next year and he wants to keep the budget tight. Just wait if he's re-elected. He'll put our money where his mouth is.
 
Colpy
Conservative
+1
#6
Quote: Originally Posted by TecumsehsbonesView Post

I'm failing to grasp how getting into a war 6000 miles (excuse me, 10,000 kilometres) from Canada is "defence," but I'm just a dumb Yank.

Ahhh...Putin is threatening Canada's arctic territory.

Quote: Originally Posted by CorduroyView Post

Harper doesn't want to increase military spending now because there's an election next year and he wants to keep the budget tight. Just wait if he's re-elected. He'll put our money where his mouth is.

I sure hope you are right.

Quote: Originally Posted by mentalflossView Post

Thank you for finally making a good decision Harper.

Yeah, heck, who needed the north anyway??
 
Tecumsehsbones
+1
#7
Quote: Originally Posted by ColpyView Post

Ahhh...Putin is threatening Canada's arctic territory.

Well, he certainly doesn't have to worry about any resistance from you.
 
lone wolf
Free Thinker
#8
Quote: Originally Posted by ColpyView Post

Ahhh...Putin is threatening Canada's arctic territory.

Only by being there. North Pole and the lion's share of Lomonosov Ridge are beyond Canadian territorial waters and aren't known to be part of any continental shelf
 
Corduroy
+1
#9
Quote: Originally Posted by ColpyView Post

I sure hope you are right.

I am right. Let's just hope he's not re-elected so I'm not proven right
 
mentalfloss
#10
Quote: Originally Posted by ColpyView Post

Yeah, heck, who needed the north anyway??

I will take a ban bet if we ever enter into any significant Arctic conflict with Russia.

It's not gonna happen.

Ever.
 
Colpy
Conservative
#11
Quote: Originally Posted by mentalflossView Post

I will take a ban bet if we ever enter into any significant Arctic conflict with Russia.

It's not gonna happen.

Ever.

OMG

You are banned.

We are ALREADY in conflict with Russia over the arctic.

We just haven't started shooting.....nor will we.

If we DO NOT HAVE the military assets necessary to establish and maintain a presense in the Arctic seas then we will have no choice but to allow Russia free reign and sovereignty over the area.

Right now, we do NOT have the assets.

If we DO have the military presense there necessary to establish are claim, they will not be attacked by the Russians, because we are a NATO country, and that would require an Article Five response.

You guys living in Fantasy Land really need a reality check.

You have sovereignty over what you can defend. Full Stop.

It is a jungle out there.

Always has been.
 
MHz
#12
Give everybody the same support we give Gaza, a Hallmark card.
 
mentalfloss
#13
Quote: Originally Posted by ColpyView Post

OMG

You are banned.

We are ALREADY in conflict with Russia over the arctic.

We just haven't started shooting.....nor will we.

If we DO NOT HAVE the military assets necessary to establish and maintain a presense in the Arctic seas then we will have no choice but to allow Russia free reign and sovereignty over the area.

Right now, we do NOT have the assets.

If we DO have the military presense there necessary to establish are claim, they will not be attacked by the Russians, because we are a NATO country, and that would require an Article Five response.

You guys living in Fantasy Land really need a reality check.

You have sovereignty over what you can defend. Full Stop.

It is a jungle out there.

Always has been.


Crazy curmudgeon fear mongering at its finest.

No wonder Harper isn't paying for this tripe.

But you're right Colpy.

Maybe he should, if only to hand the Libs a majority on a well buffed platter.
 
Colpy
Conservative
+1
#14
Quote: Originally Posted by mentalflossView Post

Crazy curmudgeon fear mongering at its finest.

No wonder Harper isn't paying for this tripe.

But you're right Colpy.

Maybe he should, if only to hand the Libs a majority on a well buffed platter.

Otherwise known as REALITY.

Yeah yeah, your hero the Grand Imbecile Obama already gave your opinion to Romney when he warned about Russia back in the 2012 election campaign:

"The eighties called, they want their foreign policy back"

How's THAT working out for him.....and the Ukraine, and NATO, and the EU???
 
mentalfloss
+1
#15
Let me know when they start shooting.

Then we'll talk.


Until then, the idea that the Arctic is at risk is pure, unadulterated bull****.

It's Harper's failed attempt at changing the channel when he's called out on something that's actually important.
 
lone wolf
Free Thinker
+3
#16
Harper doesn't want to increase military spending but he thoroughly enjoys to be the little yap dog scolding Russia. Someone should inform the emperor he can't have it both ways and look serious
 
mentalfloss
#17
Which is precisely why anything with the word 'Russia' in it is theatre.
 
tay
#18
Stephen Harper has been one of the toughest-talking leaders throughout the Ukraine crisis, yet newly released figures show National Defence is expected to face an even deeper budget hole in the coming year than previously anticipated.


The ongoing reductions come as the prime minister is expected to resist pressure from allies at this week’s NATO summit to spend substantially more on the military.


Annual spending on the military, when compared with 2011, is slated to shrink by a total of $2.7-billion in 2015, according to a briefing note prepared for the deputy defence minister.


That would be almost $300-million more than earlier internal estimates, and roughly $600-million higher than the figure defence officials acknowledged last fall when they rolled out the department’s renewal plan.




Dave Perry, an analyst with the Conference of Defence Associations, said, in order to meet the NATO goal, Ottawa would have to double the military’s budget to about $38-billion per year.


Spending more doesn’t necessarily mean a more effective military and Canada has demonstrated it gets a lot of efficiency out of the dollars it does commit, he said.


Financial estimates, that were part of the briefing package given to Rob Nicholson when he was sworn-in as defence minister in July 2013, show the Conservatives, despite past promises and rhetoric, weren’t planning to spend much more than the roughly $18.9-billion already set aside.


In a rare display of conflicting messages, Nicholson’s parliamentary secretary, James Bezan, publicly suggested last spring that the country should be spending 1.7 per cent of GDP on its military.


When the Conservatives introduced their defence strategy in 2008, they underlined how the 20-year plan would provide “stable and predictable” funding to the military by delivering a guaranteed two per cent annual increase.


But Perry said it hasn’t worked out that way and, while the escalator is still there, it’s been more than offset by cuts elsewhere.


“It’s a bizarre situation where you’ve got $2.7 billion in cuts, taking away with the left hand; but with right hand your getting this escalation amount,” Perry said.


The Canada First Defence Strategy also promised that overseas missions would be paid for — as other nations do — through a special budgetary appropriation and not taken out of the departmental budget.




more


Harper government talks tough against Russian ‘invasion,’ but cuts $2.7-billion from defence budget | National Post
 
Blackleaf
#19
For ages now the Left have been saying: "What do we need to increase defence spending for? Who are we going to be fighting in the near future? What threats do we face?"

But, of course, the Left do not possess a crystal ball, and can no more confidently say that we will face no military threats in the near future than we can confidently state that Manchester United will win the Premier League this season.

But with WWIII starting to break out in eastern Europe, a major calamity which, like the two previous World Wars, will involve all the world's major powers (but expect the US to arrive on the scene several years late and then claim they won the war singlehandedly afterwards), the Left's idea that we don't need powerful militaries because "we won't be facing any threats anytime soon" is being shown up as the naive way of thinking that it is.

Just a year ago nobody could have predicted that we are about to enter WWIII, so it goes to show that defence spending should always remain high, and we should always have large, powerful militaries, just to be prepared and be on the safe side.

LIke on almost anything that matters, the Left are disastrously wrong on this issue. In these dangerous times we need more military, not less.

By the way, aren't Canadians a little embarrassed that the UK, the US, Greece and Estonia are the only NATO countries which meet the obligations of all NATO members to spend at least 2% of GDP on defence? Greece and Estonia spend more on defence, as a proportion of their GDP, than Canada does.

US: 4.4%
UK: 2.5%
Greece: 2.5%
Estonia: 2.3%
Canada: 1.3%

Quote: Originally Posted by lone wolfView Post

Harper doesn't want to increase military spending but he thoroughly enjoys to be the little yap dog scolding Russia. Someone should inform the emperor he can't have it both ways and look serious


Canada is in danger of doing what the EUSSR has done.

Deliberately provoking the Russian Bear and then running away and meekly hiding in fright, not being able to properly fight back, when the Russian Bear retaliates.
Last edited by Blackleaf; 2 weeks ago at 06:38 AM..
 
mentalfloss
#20
I love it when critics of 'the left' begin with a denouncement of their agenda to cut spending.

Them dippers always cut cut cut.


WATCH OUT FOR THAT RUSSIAN BEAR FOLKS.
 
Blackleaf
#21
The cuts in Britain were necessary for the Tories to clean up the economic mess and the deficit the Left left behind when Labour were in power between 1997 and 2010. In Britain, the job of the Tories is to repair the economy after Labour wreck it.

Defence spending, however, should be ringfenced and protected.
 
mentalfloss
#22
You are suggesting a leftist measure in case the point went over your head the first time.
 
Blackleaf
#23
Quote: Originally Posted by mentalflossView Post

You are suggesting a leftist measure in case the point went over your head the first time.


Lefties usually want to cut military spending, as they constantly tell us - like soothsayers - that we face "no immediate threats from any foreign nation".

It's usually the Right who want to increase defence spending. Just look at Ukip's sensible policy on defence.
 
taxslave
No Party Affiliation
#24
Quote: Originally Posted by mentalflossView Post

I love it when critics of 'the left' begin with a denouncement of their agenda to cut spending.

Them dippers always cut cut cut.


WATCH OUT FOR THAT RUSSIAN BEAR FOLKS.

Cutting corners in all the wrong places.
 
MHz
#25
Quote: Originally Posted by taxslaveView Post

Cutting corners in all the wrong places.

If we can't afford our own soldiers what would we do if 100M Chinese soldiers suddenly surrendered to us? We would have to surrender to them first if we are to survive.
 
Monsieurjean
Free Thinker
#26
I hope France refuse to join is Force . I no prob with NATO. One condition NATO respect our special statue of Nuclear Power and Indépendance National built by De Gaulle in 1958. For the rest... If Eastern Europe wante British and American protection why not
 
Vancouverite
#27
Canada will agree to "compromise language" in terms in increasing defence spending. IOW, it will talk about it but not do anything.

I'm getting more and more disillusioned by the (not-so) Conservative Party. Time for a Tea Party revolution.
 
no new posts