Political Crossfire Forums

[Refrozen Seabass]

Boondoggle wrote: Need I remind you that the Conservative plan calls for billions to be spent on defence up north? Harper has stated this while in the US despite US opposition to it.

Quote, please. I've yet to hear Harper refute the US's claim, and I have three Canadian RSS newsfeeds on my browser so I don't miss many CTV, CBC, or Globe & Mail headlines.

I know he's calling to spend billions on defence. I have no problem with this. It's the failure to budget for it that's the problem.

Quote: There are many obvious flaws with your idea of withholding oil, but I'll mention two. First, federal control of Albertan oil would only set the stage for problems at home, and national unity should be the top priority of a federal government. Second, the US is a major market for Canadian exports. It is in the interest of the country to expand markets for Canadian goods and services not vice versa.

There's no doubt in my mind the embargo would not last long. It probably wouldn't be too pleasant, but neither would US gas prices if their imported oil stocks suddenly dropped by half. All they would have to do to make it all better is pony up what's owed.

It wasn't that long ago that oil was $15-$20/barrel. It's not as if our survival depends on selling incredibly expensive oil to the states. We used to make a lot less off of them than we do now and we managed.

Or we could keep selling but raise the price such that we get our 16 billion that way. That'd be fine too.

Quote: Perhaps, I've been sounding a little too defensive of Conservatives. So, I'll give you John Manley's view of the softwood lumber deal:

Quote: We need to deal with our neighbor in a sensible business like manner. It follows that we should cut the Prime Minister some slack, and applaud him if he builds a strong personal relationship with the President.

To hell with that. We cut a deal called NAFTA. The US violated it. They owe us 16 billion dollars. That's all there is to it.

Quote: On this, I believe Prime Minister Harper has done well, and he's acting in the national interest. This is exemplifide by finally settling the softwood lumber dispute, which while not perfect, makes the best of a bad situation, and removes an obstacle to working constructively on many other bilateral issues of great importance.

I'm sure the US will deal in good faith and not violate any further trade agreements even though they know Harper will bend over backwards to let them do so. Witness the constructive way the US has just decided to ignore our sovereignty and declare Canadian waters to not really be Canadian waters. Witness the abject sorrow expressed by the United States over kidnaping one of our citizens and sending him away to be tortured.

Quote:
I think you're confused.

The sarcasm was too dry, I guess.

Quote: The Liberals said that the Conservative's platform did not add up, and thus suggested that it would lead to deficits. Obviously such an accusation isn't in a platform, but it is on record if you wish to look at some news archives.

Yet they budgeted for $5 billion in extras for the military then announced they were spending $15. I never said this would lead to deficit spending, just that it's not fiscally responsible.

Money makes my head spin, but I understand that a lot of cuts have been made to things like museum programs and adult literacy programs in order to provide a balanced budget. I'll admit to not following closely enough to know if that's related to the military overspending or not.

But I'm sure the Liberals budgeted far more than the Conservatives did when it comes to military upgrades. And I'm sure the Conservatives are spending more than they said they would.

Quote: Actually, I think it's more about pleasing his base. It's hardly been a top priority of the government. However, there are other constituents out there that don't hold the same view as you.

What? Homophobes? In Alberta? Say it ain't so!

Attempting to please his base is no more acceptable a reason to have homosexuals treated as second class citizens than any other. Look at all the fun the Americans have had because of policies designed to please Bush's base. To hell with cutting edge medical research, gotta please the base. To hell with effective sex education, gotta please the base.

I told you: results matter. I don't care why Harper wants to legalize bigotry against homosexuals. Maybe he's religious, maybe he's pandering to his base, maybe he was scared by a feather boa as a child. Doesn't matter.

Quote: Actually, my preference is relevant here because I have just as much right to representation from the government as you do.

Is it? Well, slavery being illegal was also forced, as it were, on both of us since it's been illegal since long before we were born. No one asked us if we thought black people should be free and have the vote and stuff. Do you suggest that be put to a vote as well? I'm sure you have rights that no one asked me about as well. Should I insist we put your right to, say, health care to a vote?

Quote: Quote: We can argue what his intentions were, but that's a moot point given that that's not how it is now.

Quote: Nonsense. It's a clear indicator of his attitude toward his employers.

Quote: What, that he's willing to change his position to suit constituents? That's hardly a bad thing.

He didn't change his position to suit his constituents. As far as I know his position is the same, but the criticism made it clear that his position is not politically wise to hold. He's still the sort of man who thinks hiding such things from his employers is a good idea, for whatever reason. He hasn't changed his mind, he's just letting us have our way.

His intentions are not moot, by the way. They are very much the heart of the issue. He's a person who wants homosexuals to be treated as second-class citizens and for some reason doesn't want people to see soldiers arriving home in a box. That he isn't getting his way in these matters doesn't change that fact.

I'll illustrate with an example so extreme that the point cannot be missed. Let us say Harper suggests we build a nuclear bomb and detonate it in downtown Tampa Bay. This would of course never get far in Parliament and would never happen. But we'd still be left with a PM who thinks detonating a nuclear bomb in Tampa Bay is a good idea. Does the fact he didn't get his way suddenly make his psychopathic tendencies moot?

Well, it's the same with gay rights. He may have failed in his initial bid to have gay people treated as second-class, but he still wants them to be second-class. Hardly a fit leader for this country.

[Refrozen Seabass]

[Bible]Monkey wrote: A friend of mine is in Afghanistan, Princess Patricia Light infantry . He's been there a long time-four tours now, I think.

There's a coincidence. I have a friend, also based out of Edmonton, who served over there with the 1 Field Ambulance until he had both his legs blown off last January.

Small world.

[Ellron]

Did they send the inflattable boat with the BAR yet?

Thats the shining star of the Can navy.

[Boondoggle]

Keep digging a hole Seabass:

Quote: Harper has promised to increase defence spending by $5.3 billion more than is currently planned to be spent from 2006-2011.

http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNews/story/CTVNews/20051227/ELXN_harper_military_051227/20051227/

The Liberals planned to spend $12.7 billion over five years (2006-2011).

In case you're having difficulty, $12.7 billion + $5.3 billion = $18 billion. Therefore, $15 billion spent by the Conservatives does not blow the budget.

Again, if you're having difficulty, $12.7 billion < $18 billion. Therefore, the Liberals were not willing to spend more.

On top of that, the Conservatives put a $13 billion surplus down on the debt. So, they don't need to take the money from your beloved programs for military spending.

Also, which one of your news feeds says that $16 billion is owed for softwood? The tariff total was just over $5 billion. http://www.cbc.ca/news/background/softwood_lumber/

As for sovereignty:

Quote: August 12, 2006

Speaking before hundreds of residents, politicians and military personnel at the Nunavut legislature in Iqaluit, Harper said his government would defend Canada's sovereignty in the region.

http://www.cbc.ca/canada/story/2006/08/12/harper-northwest.html#skip300x250


Quote: August 13, 2006

Prime Minister Stephen Harper travelled to Ellesmere Island in Nunavut on Sunday as part of a trip designed to reassert Canada's claim of sovereignty over Arctic waters.

Harper's destination was Canadian Forces Station Alert, the most northern permanent inhabited settlement in the world. He reiterated his claim to assert control over the Northwest Passage.

http://www.cbc.ca/canada/story/2006/08/13/harper-north.html

Quote: September 27, 2006

"We're hearing a lot from Canada's prime minister about sovereignty issues in the North," said Treadwell, the chairman of the U.S. Arctic Research Commission.

Prime Minister Stephen Harper has promised to increase Canada's presence in the North, and didn't shy away from telling American business leaders and politicians at a recent address in New York.

"We will defend our sovereignty over all our territory — including over the islands, waterways and resources of the High Arctic — even if that conflicts with American claims," he said on Sept. 20.

http://www.cbc.ca/world/story/2006/09/27/northwest-passage.html


Quote: Oct. 6, 2006

But, by visiting Alert and observing Operation Lancaster, I also wanted to underline our government's commitment to rebuilding our military and to asserting Canadian sovereignty — to asserting sovereignty over all of our territory, including the islands and waterways of our Arctic.

Asserting sovereignty means a presence. And let me assure you, we intend to be there.

http://www.cbc.ca/news/background/harper_stephen/foreignpolicyspeech.html

Get the point yet?

If you're going to go off topic, can you at least get your facts straight? Thanks.

[Refrozen Seabass]

Boondoggle wrote: Keep digging a hole Seabass:

Good start. I'm sure to be grateful for any factual errors you may happen to correct and I'm sure I will admit I'm wrong with grace and aplomb as befits the level of discourse you're setting here.

Quote: Harper has promised to increase defence spending by $5.3 billion more than is currently planned to be spent from 2006-2011.

Right! And the Liberals promised to increase it by 13 billion. That 13 billion was also additional spending, as their platform makes clear.

This is what I read in the Conservative platform. I'm quoting verbatim:

Quote: Additional funds for National Defence - 5,325(2)

(2)The Conservative fiscal plan includes the cost of capital investments (i.e., the purchase of new equipment and construction of new
facilities) on exactly the same basis as the government’s current budget. It therefore contains the additional annual cost of financing
these capital projects for National Defence.

http://www.conservative.ca/media/20060113-FiscalPlan.pdf

Here's the relevant passage from the Liberal platform:

Quote: We will provide an additional $13 billion of investments in defence capacity over the next five years – the largest increase in the military budget in two decades.

http://www.liberal.ca/pdf/docs/platform_e.pdf

As far as I can tell, this means the Liberals were going to increase military spending by 13 billion whereas the Conservatives were going to increase it by 5 billion.

Quote: On top of that, the Conservatives put a $13 billion surplus down on the debt. So, they don't need to take the money from your beloved programs for military spending.

It has to come from somewhere. Money doesn't grow on trees.

Quote: Also, which one of your news feeds says that $16 billion is owed for softwood? The tariff total was just over $5 billion. http://www.cbc.ca/news/background/softwood_lumber/

In this, you're right. The US has ripped us off for $5 billion. I knew it was $5 billion. I can't imagine why the number turned to 16 billion in my head this time around. Maybe $16 billion is a figure of merit in some other issue and the number snuck into my thoughts on this issue by mistake.

That doesn't change my position on the matter, though. We cut a deal, they welched on it. That's that.

Quote: As for sovereignty

(Links and quotes removed)

I would thank you for correcting me on the matter if you weren't being such a p***k.

Interestingly enough, I found this:

Quote: In the 2006 election, Prime Minister Stephen Harper made a campaign promise to defend Canada's Arctic sovereignty. He promised to bolster Canada's presence in the waterway with the addition of three heavy-duty armed icebreakers. He also planned to set up a network of underwater sensors to listen for foreign vessels, and put aircraft and unmanned drones in the skies over the North. The total cost of the Arctic commitments made by the Conservatives is about $5.3 billion over five years.

$5.3 billion. There goes all that additional spending money. Now we're back to the previous budget. Except instead of using it just to support the status quo, we have to support the status quo and also pay for the new tanks and APC's and extra troops and all the rest of Harper's grand vision for our military.

This is not fiscally conservative.

[Boondoggle]

Refrozen Seabass wrote: We will provide an additional $13 billion of investments in defence capacity over the next five years – the largest increase in the military budget in two decades.

http://www.liberal.ca/pdf/docs/platform_e.pdf

Sure, additional to the regular budget. That is, however, recycled from the 2005 budget. In other words, the same money that the Conservatives are adding $5.3 billion to.

If you look at page 74 of the Liberal platform, it says:

Quote: ...Our military strength will be increased by 5000 regular troops and 3000 reserves, with up-to-date equipment to do the job as safely as possible. This will anhance our ability to address situations of humanitarian catastrophe in a way that will allow Canada to play a leading role in peace support operations.

... We will provide an additional $13 billion of investments in defence capacity over the next five years - the largest increase in the military budget in two decades. We will move forward with the procurement of a new tactical airlift fleet for the Canadian Forces. It will allow for the aquisition of new medium-heavy capacity helipcopters, logistics trucks, search and rescue utility aircraft and specialized facilities for Joint Task Force Two, Canada's elite anti-terrorism troops. With these investments, the Canadian Forces will be able to do more of what they already do so well.

Stop me if this sounds familiar:

Quote: Last summer, we made a commitment to increase Canada's regular defence forces by 5,000 members and its reserves by 3,000 -- an important first step in implementing any new defence policy.

I am pleased to confirm today that this budget delivers on that commitment. In fact, we will go much further.

On a cash basis, over the coming five years, we will provide nearly $13 billion in new funding to our Armed Forces -- the largest increase in defence spending in the last 20 years:

funding for both the new troops and the new reserves
funding for operational sustainability; and
funding to acquire new equipment and material both before and after policy reviews.

Budget 2005

Also, the figure the Conservatives gave is not written in stone as the maximum they will spend on the military. It's more of a down-payment, and they never claimed that it would solve everything. In fact, Harper said that he'd like to see the regular budget at 2-3% GDP eventually.

Quote: Defence Minister Gordon O'Connor says his $15 billion spending plan is necessary to update a military that has been hollowed out after years of underspending and cutbacks.

Speaking on CTV's Question Period, O'Connor said the massive spending plan is an absolute necessity.

"What we're trying to do now is put in place the very basic requirements of the military to be effective. Mobilities - air mobility, army mobility on the ground, and mobility at sea, so that's where we're starting."

http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNews/story/CTVNews/20060625/military_spending_060625/20060625?hub=Canada

In other words, you can expect more to come.

Just a few examples: I've read that they're going to spend $500 million on new UAVs in addition to the $15 billion in spending that was announced. As shown in recent reports, they're shopping around for tanks. It's also likely that they're planning to replace the destroyers.

Sounding expensive? That's what happens when you underfund and cut the military for years. So, you have to decide whether or not you want an effective modern military. If you do, you'll have no problem with them spending the money that's necessary rather than some fixed number. Obviously it'd be pragmatic to space it out and avoid deficits, and they're doing that.

With $13 billion put towards the debt, it's pretty hard to make the argument that the Conservatives are not fiscally conservative. Nonetheless, you attempt to do so while complaining that they don't cover all the costs of child care and that they're cutting other programs. Sounds to me like they're more fiscally conservative than you are.

Quote: I would thank you for correcting me on the matter if you weren't being such a p***k.

You're the one that derailed the thread with your rant. I would appreciate it if you at least try to be accurate about it. Sure, I've given you a hard time about it, but you asked for it imo.

Quote: There was a time when one could ignore Canadian politics.

Perhaps, this attitude has something to do with it. Too busy with American politics?

[Boondoggle]

Refrozen Seabass wrote: I'm all for newer and better gear so our existing military has the best, but what do we need another 23000 troops for? What are we planning to do with them?

You make it sound as though they're militarizing the country. 23,000 troops barely restores troop strength to where it was before the Liberals cut the military to eliminate the deficit. The deficit is long gone and replaced with surplus now. So, why expect the military to continue to operate on a budget that was designed to eliminate the deficit?

Also, you fail to take into account two important words: troop rotation. That's not 23,000 troops that are going to be deployed at once. Why is this important?

[Bible]Monkey wrote: A friend of mine is in Afghanistan, Princess Patricia Light infantry . He's been there a long time-four tours now, I think.

I don't think the same people should have to keep going back over.

Also, given the history and resources of this country, it shouldn't be struggling with the deployment of a brigade. I think 2-3 brigades with a mix of capabilities and proper troop rotation is reasonable for Canada. It would give the ability to respond to multiple small conflicts at the same time, or scale up the number of troops as needed, which seems to be what the challenge of today is. What if we really need the military to respond to something? There goes the mission in Afghanistan.... That's not a good position to be in.

[Refrozen Seabass]

Boondoggle wrote: Refrozen Seabass wrote: We will provide an additional $13 billion of investments in defence capacity over the next five years – the largest increase in the military budget in two decades.

http://www.liberal.ca/pdf/docs/platform_e.pdf

Sure, additional to the regular budget.

Exactly my point. The Liberals were going to spend an additional 13 billion, whereas the Conservatives only 5.

Quote: That is, however, recycled from the 2005 budget. In other words, the same money that the Conservatives are adding $5.3 billion to.

No. Not recycled from the 2005 budget, recycled from the then-current budget. The extra $13 billion the Liberals planned on spending was not approved. They planned on starting to spend that extra $13 billion in 2005, could not because of the initial abstention and then the vote for second reading coming in at a dead even tie and all the no-confidence bulls**t, then rolled it over into the 2006 platform when the election was called. Parliament was still trying vote on the budget in mid-2005.

Besides, if your interpretation is correct, then the Liberals were planning on spending $26 billion, as they are also adding it to then-current budget. I doubt your interpretation is correct.

The current budget referred to in the Conservative Fiscal Plan does not include the $13 billion increase the liberals planned to implement in 2005.

Quote: If you look at page 74 of the Liberal platform, it says:

That's the same page I quoted to you!


Quote: Also, the figure the Conservatives gave is not written in stone as the maximum they will spend on the military. It's more of a down-payment,

There's nothing in the Conservative Fiscal Plan about a down-payment. $5 billion and change over five years is what it says.

Quote: and the they never claimed that it would solve everything. In fact, Harper said that he'd like to see the regular budget at 2-3% GDP.

I'd like a pony.

5.3 billion dollars over five years is what this minority government's budget says. If he wants to ramp it up after that, assuming he's in power that long, then it'll have to be on that budget. He will never ever get my vote, but I'm all for fulfilling our duty as members of NATO. As I've said before, national integrity is important and not pulling our weight is not cool.

I question his judgement as to what we'll do with our newfound military might, though. He's too fond of the Bush Doctrine.

But whatever. In the meantime, he's already blown that 5.3 billion dollars for goodies.

Quote: Defence Minister Gordon O'Connor says his $15 billion spending plan is necessary to update a military that has been hollowed out after years of underspending and cutbacks.

And ya know, that's why I found the Liberals $13 billion dollar increase so appealing.

Quote: Speaking on CTV's Question Period, O'Connor said the massive spending plan is an absolute necessity.

And ya know, that's why I found the LIberal $13 billion dollar increase so appealing.

I would've voted for more.

Quote: Sounding expensive? That's what happens when you underfund and cut the military for years. So, you have to decide whether or not you want an effective modern military.

Spare me the lecture.

Quote: With $13 billion put towards the debt, it's pretty hard to make the argument that the Conservatives are not fiscally conservative.

I manage.

Quote: Nonetheless, you attempt to do so while complaining that they don't cover all the costs of child care and that they're cutting other programs. Sounds to me like they're more fiscally conservative than you are.

I don't plan to spend one amount then spend three times that amount, so in that respect I'm more fiscally conservative than they are.

Quote: I would thank you for correcting me on the matter if you weren't being such a p***k.

Quote: You're the one that derailed the thread with your rant. I would appreciate it if you at least try to be accurate about it.

I do try to be accurate. I have no problem being corrected when mistaken. We'll see if Harper puts our money where his mouth is when it comes down it, but he's talked the talk to this point.

Quote: Quote: There was a time when one could ignore Canadian politics.

Perhaps, this attitude has something to do with it. Too busy with American politics?

No, I just found it very confusing compared to American politics. It's still confusing.

[Refrozen Seabass]

Boondoggle wrote: You make it sound as though they're militarizing the country.

Nonsense. I said no such thing.

Quote: 23,000 troops barely restores troop strength to where it was before the Liberals cut the military to eliminate the deficit. The deficit is long gone and replaced with surplus now. So, why expect the military to continue to operate on a budget that was designed to eliminate the deficit?

You don't plan for that many more troops just to have them around. Why feed mouths we don't need to feed?

Quote: Also, you fail to take into account two important words: troop rotation. That's not 23,000 troops that are going to be deployed at once.

I wasn't under the impression they would be. If I was, I'd have said "where are they all going to be deployed?"

Quote: Why is this important?

I could ask you the same question, I guess. Why are Harper's plans for the military important to you?

[Boondoggle]

Refrozen Seabass wrote: Exactly my point. The Liberals were going to spend an additional 13 billion, whereas the Conservatives only 5.

No. Not recycled from the 2005 budget, recycled from the then-current budget. The extra $13 billion the Liberals planned on spending was not approved. They planned on starting to spend that extra $13 billion in 2005, could not because of the initial abstention and then the vote for second reading coming in at a dead even tie and all the no-confidence bulls**t, then rolled it over into the 2006 platform when the election was called. Parliament was still trying vote on the budget in mid-2005.

Besides, if your interpretation is correct, then the Liberals were planning on spending $26 billion, as they are also adding it to then-current budget. I doubt your interpretation is correct.

So in 2005, the Liberals announce $13 billion for the military as the biggest increase in military spending in 20 years. Then, according to you, they announce another $13 billion in 2006 which is also - according to the Liberals - the biggest increase in spending in 20 years? I wouldn't mind being able to get 20 years out of less than a year. That's a pretty neat trick.

Come on Seabass, get serious.

The money is also going towards same things that the $13 billion announced in 2005 was for, but that's just a coincidence of course.

From CBC 2006 Canada votes:

Quote: Liberals

Resources: Expand the forces by 5,000 and the reserves by 3,000. The 2005 budget promised a $13-billion increase in spending over five years.

http://www.cbc.ca/canadavotes/leadersparties/issues.html

From the 2005 budget:

Quote: The federal government said it will spend $2.7 billion between 2007 and 2010 on helicopters, trucks, aircraft and a training facility for JTF2, Canada's special forces unit.

http://www.cbc.ca/news/background/budget2005/issue_defence.html

Now, keep what's listed for the 2005 budget in mind and look at where the money from the Liberal 2006 platform is going:

Quote: We will move forward with the procurement of a new tactical airlift fleet for the Canadian Forces. It will allow for the aquisition of new medium-heavy capacity helipcopters, logistics trucks, search and rescue utility aircraft and specialized facilities for Joint Task Force Two, Canada's elite anti-terrorism troops.

Seeing some similarities yet? That's because the Liberals were selling what they were already doing as any party in power would do. The Conservatives, however, committed addtional money to that. Unlike the money listed in the Liberal platform, the additional money from the Conservatives isn't going towards the same stuff from 2005.

Quote: There's nothing in the Conservative Fiscal Plan about a down-payment. $5 billion and change over five years is what it says.

Maybe if you paid attention to the election rather than reading the platforms nearly a year later, you'd understand what I'm talking about. The Conservative plan was no secret before and during the election.

From CBC Canada Votes 2006:

Quote: Increase defence spending to the NATO European average as a percentage of GDP.

http://www.cbc.ca/canadavotes/leadersparties/issues.html


That means increasing the regular budget to about 2-3% GDP not one-time spending over 5 years. This would bring Canada's military budget back to where it should normally be - and where it was for decades before Martin's cuts - now that the deficit is long gone. Harper also mentioned this in the 2004 election, and Gordon O'Connor has also commented on the current spending being more of a down-payment.

If you like, I can dig up more quotes.

I should also correct you on the Conservative military plans. If you don't like it, it's not Harper you should be criticizing. Gordon O'Connor - an ex-brigadier general - drafted the Conservative military strategy. I don't know about you, but I have more confidence in the numbers coming from an ex-general than the man that created a lot of the problems that we now have to fix.

Quote: 5.3 billion dollars over five years is what this minority government's budget says. If he wants to ramp it up after that, assuming he's in power that long, then it'll have to be on that budget. He will never ever get my vote, but I'm all for fulfilling our duty as members of NATO. As I've said before, national integrity is important and not pulling our weight is not cool.

In addition to the $13 billion that is. Moreover, equipment that is needed for Afghanistan is an exception.

Given your rather partisan left-leaning position, I doubt you'd vote for Conservatives regardless. So, they haven't really lost anything. I, on the other hand, am not totally in one camp. I vote based on what I think is important to the country at the time not based on party lines. At this point in time, I believe rebuilding the military is one of the top priorities. Therefore, the vote that the Conservatives wouldn't get from you anyway is compensated for with mine.

Quote: We'll see if Harper puts our money where his mouth is when it comes down it, but he's talked the talk to this point.

Quote: O'Connor told CTV Newsnet he anticipates the military to see the first new strategic aircraft in 2007, while the tactical aircraft, helicopters, and trucks are expected in 2008.

"Somewhere in the next two years, you are going to see a lot of this equipment starting to appear, the ships (will take) longer because we are building them in Canada ... and it's going to take us six years for us to get the first ship," he said.

http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNews/story/CTVNews/20060629/military_spending_060629/20060629/

Here's the web site for the new C-130J: http://www.c-130j.ca/index.php?page=needs&lang_id=1&page_id=30

Also the Liberals complained about the bidding process, but the Conservatives went with the American planes because the Americans can deliver them quickly. If you're for walking the walk instead of just talking the talk, you'll support the Conservatives on this.

I think the fact that they're looking at options for new tanks is further evidence that they're walking the walk and not just talking the talk.

In addition, looks like they're considering restoring another capability that the Canadian forces lost in cuts:

Quote: The Canadian military is about to do something it hasn't done in a grand way since the Second World War: storm the beaches.

In a $19-million training exercise, troops will stage an amphibious assault on a beach in North Carolina next week, with help from the U.S. navy.

http://www.cbc.ca/cp/national/061108/n110884.html

Quote: I question his judgement as to what we'll do with our newfound military might, though. He's too fond of the Bush Doctrine.

When Harper saw that most Canadians were against the Iraq war, he changed his position. On the other hand, Michael Ignatieff - Liberal leadership front runner - continues to say that the Iraq war was about defending human rights, and that he'll defend human rights whether or not it's popular. So, do you want a leader that is willing to change his position based on what constituents want, or someone that stubbornly sticks to his position? The latter sounds more like Bush if you ask me.

[Dagger]

I was at CFB (Canadian Forces Base) Cold Lake 2 summers ago. To doa a Survival Intstructor Course. Got to sit in a F-18 it was sweet. got a pciture taken. lol. too bad they never flew us round. just let us sit.

But i was there for 6 weeks. first 4 weeks they were cool to watch. but last 2 they got annoyin. god damn loud things. always in the air. esspicially. wen the british and isrealis came. they started training even louder. my instructor had to stop talking ever 5 mins cause we couldnt hear him.

Good times....


O i saw them again this year. At CFB Comox. i was getting my pilots license. it was fun. i swear to god. there so small when you think about it.

So whats the topic bout? lol i ll start readin.

[Boondoggle]

Refrozen Seabass wrote: You don't plan for that many more troops just to have them around. Why feed mouths we don't need to feed?

What part of troop rotation don't you understand?

By the way, that gets divided up into different areas, and that includes more people for the Navy. That means that they'll have the crew that's needed for one of the destroyers that's simply docked because they don't have enough people thanks to the cuts. Why have a destroyer rust away at a dock because the previous government cut the military to the point that they couldn't operate it?

Quote: Quote: Why is this important?

I could ask you the same question, I guess. Why are Harper's plans for the military important to you?

I've already explained why in previous posts, and I could elaborate further, but how about you explain why you think the military should continue to operate in a way that was designed to eliminate a deficit that's been gone for over a decade instead?

[Boondoggle]

Ellron wrote: Did they send the inflattable boat with the BAR yet?

Thats the shining star of the Can navy.

You mean this?



:P

psst Afghanistan is a land-locked country.

[Refrozen Seabass]

Boondoggle wrote: What part of troop rotation don't you understand?

'Troop rotation' isn't a satisfactory answer. If Harper said 'for troop rotation' and nothing else, I wouldn't be satisfied with that.

Quote: I've already explained why in previous posts, and I could elaborate further, but how about you explain why you think the military should continue to operate in a way that was designed to eliminate a deficit that's been gone for over a decade instead?

I don't. I didn't argue for maintaining the status quo, I argued for increasing spending by 13 billion dollars.

[Refrozen Seabass]

Boondoggle wrote: So in 2005, the Liberals announce $13 billion for the military as the biggest increase in military spending in 20 years. Then, according to you, they announce another $13 billion in 2006 which is also - according to the Liberals - the biggest increase in spending in 20 years?

No. Not another $13 billion, the same $13 billion. I will repeat myself here:

Me wrote: No. Not recycled from the 2005 budget, recycled from the then-current budget. The extra $13 billion the Liberals planned on spending [starting in 2005] was not approved. They planned on starting to spend that extra $13 billion in 2005, could not because of the initial abstention and then the vote for second reading coming in at a dead even tie and all the no-confidence bulls**t, then rolled it over into the 2006 platform when the election was called. Parliament was still trying vote on the budget in mid-2005.


Quote: The money is also going towards same things that the $13 billion announced in 2005 was for, but that's just a coincidence of course.

No, it's no coincidence. Perhaps this bears repeating yet again:

Me wrote: They planned on starting to spend that extra $13 billion in 2005, could not because of the initial abstention and then the vote for second reading coming in at a dead even tie and all the no-confidence bulls**t, then rolled it over into the 2006 platform when the election was called.

Read that carefully.

Quote: From CBC 2006 Canada votes:

[snip]

I'm aware of what the Liberals promised. I'm aware they promised it again in 2006. I voted for it twice. What you fail to understand is the the 2005 proposed budget was never enacted. That's why it was also part of the 2006 platform. Remember that vote of non-confidence thingy?


Quote: Seeing some similarities yet? That's because the Liberals were selling what they were already doing as any party in power would do.

They weren't doing it. They still wanted to do it because they hadn't been able to yet. Parliament didn't give the go-ahead.

I really don't think you understand what was happening between elections.

Quote: The Conservatives, however, committed addtional money to that.

No. I've explained how your interpretation is incorrect. They committed additional funds to the then-current budget. The then-current budget did not include the 13 billion extra because it wasn't part of the budget. That budget was never put into action because of the vote of no-confidence.

Quote: Maybe if you paid attention to the election rather than reading the platforms nearly a year later

Nuts to you. I read all the platforms before I voted. I've knew what each had to say about defense before I voted.

Quote: you'd understand what I'm talking about

I do understand you. It's not that I don't get it, it's that you're wrong.

Quote: The Conservative plan was no secret before and during the election.

I hope not.

Quote: From CBC Canada Votes 2006:

Quote: Increase defence spending to the NATO European average as a percentage of GDP.

http://www.cbc.ca/canadavotes/leadersparties/issues.html


That means increasing the regular budget to about 2-3% GDP not one-time spending over 5 years.

I searched the pdf of the party platform and I couldn't find that claim anywhere. I found "Increase spending on the Canadian Forces by $5.3 billion over the next five years, beyond the currently projected levels of defence spending," in the Platform, but nothing about increasing spending to a certain portion of the GDP on a regular basis. The blurb on the site mentions it, but not the platform itself. Not that I could see. Nor does the budget I referenced earlier mention such a thing.

Maybe that $5.3 billion represents that increase. That's a possibility. The only possibility as far as I can tell.

In any case, that "currently projected levels of defence spending" does not include the 2005 Liberal budget because that budget was never put into play.

Quote: In addition to the $13 billion that is.

No. You say this, yet you cannot back it up. You haven't countered my argument, you've ignored it. I don't see any point in continuing the discussion past this post if you're going to do that.

Quote: Moreover, equipment that is needed for Afghanistan is an exception.

Aren't you generous. I doubt that the Conservatives were unaware of this need when they wrote their budget. I don't allow for the exception, I consider the Conservatives to have not budgeted properly for it.

Quote: Given your rather partisan left-leaning position, I doubt you'd vote for Conservatives regardless.

Partisan, hell. If the Liberals were homophobes who believed in fouling my home for the profits of fat white men who'll be dead in a couple of decades anyway I wouldn't vote for them either. I'd vote Marxist/Leninist or something out of spite.

I always consider all the parties, except the wackos. I reject the Harper Conservatives, but I may well vote for the next generation of Conservatives. I'd certainly read their platform and give it due consideration. You can call me a liar if you like, I can't imagine how I'd prove I'm not.

Quote: So, they haven't really lost anything. I, on the other hand, am not totally in one camp. I vote based on what I think is important to the country at the time not based on party lines. At this point in time, I believe rebuilding the military is one of the top priorities. Therefore, the vote that the Conservatives wouldn't get from you anyway is compensated for with mine.

Or, if you live near me, mine cancels yours out. As if it matters in this province.

And I'd remind you again that I voted for a larger military spending increase than you did. I'm not offended at your accusation that I vote along party lines, but I'll only tell you you're wrong once.

Quote: Quote: We'll see if Harper puts our money where his mouth is when it comes down it, but he's talked the talk to this point.

[Military specs]



I was referring specifically to his claims that he'll defend our sovereignty in the Arctic from the Americans, actually. I have no doubt he'll spend lots of cash on the military to help fight their war in Afghanistan.

Quote: When Harper saw that most Canadians were against the Iraq war, he changed his position.

See the previous example about destroying Tampa Bay.

Quote: On the other hand, Michael Ignatieff - Liberal leadership front runner - continues to say that the Iraq war was about defending human rights, and that he'll defend human rights whether or not it's popular.

I'm not especially thrilled with Ignatieff's position on Iraq either.

Quote: So, do you want a leader that is willing to change his position based on what constituents want, or someone that stubbornly sticks to his position? The latter sounds more like Bush if you ask me.

No, Bush only talked up the humanitarian angle so people would cheer and wave their flags and forget about those pesky WMD's that supposedly justified the war in the first place and - most importantly - vote Republican again. I think Ignatieff's sincere. That doesn't mean I agree with him.

I don't want a PM who tells me what I want to hear just because he thinks I want to hear it. I want one whose senses of right and wrong and wisdom and foolishness more or less coincide with mine. Harper's not up to snuff. That has nothing to do with the defense budget, though.

[Boondoggle]

Refrozen Seabass wrote: Boondoggle wrote: What part of troop rotation don't you understand?

'Troop rotation' isn't a satisfactory answer. If Harper said 'for troop rotation' and nothing else, I wouldn't be satisfied with that.

Right now, they are having trouble keeping a brigade in Afghanistan without sending the same people over, and you say troop rotation isn't a satisfactory answer? I think it's obvious that your argument holds no water.

Also, unlike the Liberal plan, the Conservatives actually gave details on where troops would be positioned. I'll post that later.

Quote: Quote: I've already explained why in previous posts, and I could elaborate further, but how about you explain why you think the military should continue to operate in a way that was designed to eliminate a deficit that's been gone for over a decade instead?

I don't. I didn't argue for maintaining the status quo, I argued for increasing spending by 13 billion dollars.

If you are not for maintaining the status quo, you shouldn't have a problem troop strength being restored to pre-93 levels. In 1993, the regular forces had about 80,000 people. Today, it's at about 58,000. Only 13,000 of the increase from the Conservatives is for regular forces. Do the math, and you will see that it doesn't even restore troop strength to pre-93 levels, yet you complain about it. So, you're either for restoring it to pre-93 levels -- in which case you'll support the Conservatives' increase -- or you are for having a military that was designed to eliminate a deficit more than a decade ago.

Paul Martin cut troop strength by about 22,000 regular forces. Under pressure from Conservatives while he had a minority government, he said he'd add 5,000. That would still leave the military 17,000 short while he was either Finance Minister or Prime Minister, and you want to continue having him in charge of it? :roll:

Further, you call it "our newfound military might," yet that is FAR from the truth. In truth, Canada has had far more military power in the past, and the current situation is only the result of neglect from recent governments.

Here is a chart showing Canadian military spending and troop levels since 1946:

http://www.cbc.ca/news/background/cdnmilitary/shrinking_military_table.html

Hell, Canada even had an aircraft carrier up until 1970:



http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HMCS_Bonaventure_%28CVL_22%29

As for your long second reply, I'm not even going to bother with it because it's obvious that you just want to argue back and forth for the sake of arguing rather than debate the issue. If you paid attention to the election campaign of both 2004 and 2006 instead of reading the platforms long after the election, for example, you'd know that it's no secret that the Conservatives want to restore the budget to 2-3% GDP. I'm not going to argue with someone that doesn't want to pay attention to what goes on in his own country while he lectures Americans and claims that he does know what's going on.

[Boondoggle]

From the Conservative web site:

Quote: The Conservative Party supports the longer term goal of increasing the defence budget base to ensure that Canada can advance its national interests, at levels comparable to Canada’s NATO European allies. A Conservative Government will increase defence spending to the NATO European average as a percentage of G.D.P. A Conservative Government will also guarantee a stable defence budget so that the Department of National Defence can spend funds on its most urgent operational and equipment priorities.

http://www.conservative.ca/EN/2692/41691

Examples of where additional forces will be added and why they're needed:

1) Quote: A Conservative government would boost Canada's ability to project its values around the world with more military aircraft and a new airborne battalion, Leader Stephen Harper said on Tuesday.

Harper made the announcement at Trenton, Ont., where he said the new battalion and large strategic lift aircraft would be based. The Conservatives would also buy planes to replace the military's aging fleet of Hercules aircraft.

"Hitchhikers get to their destination, but they don't get to pick the route or the timing," he said, referring to recent missions in which the Canadian military had to rely on U.S. or Russian aircraft.

2) Quote: Harper also announced he would: Increase Pacific navy personnel levels by about 500.

3) Quote: Restore a regular army presence in British Columbia with a new rapid reaction army battalion of 650 regular force personnel.

The Conservative leader said he would boost the military's presence in British Columbia and across Western Canada because the West Coast is vital to national sovereignty.

He said Canada currently does not have the capacity to respond to crises in its own back yard, especially in British Columbia.

4) Quote: "A large number of our cities have no military presence," Harper said while campaigning on Vancouver Island Tuesday.

If he's elected Jan. 23, Harper said, territorial battalions made up of 100 regular troops and 400 or more reservists would be stationed in Vancouver, Calgary, Regina, Winnipeg, the Toronto area and other major metropolitan areas.

"This is a full military presence," he added. "Obviously we would anticipate that its domestic need would be in case of disaster...but obviously they would be military forces that could be forward-deployed in the event of more serious military conflict elsewhere."

5) Quote: The Conservatives also plan to double the capacity of the Disaster Assistance Response Team, which has been deployed around the world to help in relief efforts following natural disasters such as last year's tsunami and the earthquake this fall in Pakistan.

sources:

http://www.cbc.ca/news/story/2005/12/13/elxn-harper-military.html

http://www.cbc.ca/news/story/2005/12/28/harper-military051228.html

Troop rotation and additional crew and support personnel for the new icebreakers up north also factor into it.

[Boondoggle]

Refrozen Seabass wrote: No. You say this, yet you cannot back it up. You haven't countered my argument, you've ignored it. I don't see any point in continuing the discussion past this post if you're going to do that.

A rather long winded post that didn't really add anything, yet you mention a couple things I'm not going to let slip.

The Conservatives have stated repeatedly that the $5.3 billion is in addition to what the Liberals would spend. What did the Liberal platform - which you quoted - say it would spend that "additional" $13 billion on? It stated that it was for air planes, trucks, helicopters. Oh, and, from what I recall, it didn't mention the new support ships for the navy, but that's been in the plans since 2004. Now, what did the Conservatives just announce that they are buying? You guessed it, airplanes, trucks, helicopters, and the support ships. Why? Because they said -- repeatedly -- that they would follow through with those plans AND add an additional $5.3 billion.

Quote: Quote: Moreover, equipment that is needed for Afghanistan is an exception.

Aren't you generous. I doubt that the Conservatives were unaware of this need when they wrote their budget. I don't allow for the exception, I consider the Conservatives to have not budgeted properly for it.

And the Liberals had a set figure for Afghanistan? Nope. Why? Because the cost can change based on an ongoing review of a changing situation. It's not something you can write in stone. By your own argument, the Liberals would not have budgeted for it properly either.

Moreover, it was Martin -- not Harper -- that sent troops to southern Afghanistan where they are more involved in combat if you want to complain about that.

However, let's get to the truth of the matter. You're partisan Liberal that's bitter because your party isn't in power. You claim that you are for more military spending, but you're against restoring troop strength to pre-93 levels. Instead, you put more effort into advocating the government covering all the cost of child care, same sex marriage and government interference in private enterprise. The truth shines brightly in your arguments. So, admit it, you're partisan Liberal and that's the real reason why you'll oppose anything that the government does. With that obvious conclusion, I agree with you on one thing: there's no point in continuing this.

[Refrozen Seabass]

Boondoggle wrote: Right now, they are having trouble keeping a brigade in Afghanistan without sending the same people over, and you say troop rotation isn't a satisfactory answer? I think it's obvious that your argument holds no water.

I'm not making any argument. "Troop rotation" is no answer any more than "to buy stuff" is.

Quote: Also, unlike the Liberal plan, the Conservatives actually gave details on where troops would be positioned. I'll post that later.

Why? Do you think I'm some sort of military fanboy? Does it support your claims regarding the budgets? No, and no.

Quote: If you are not for maintaining the status quo, you shouldn't have a problem troop strength being restored to pre-93 levels. In 1993, the regular forces had about 80,000 people. Today, it's at about 58,000. Only 13,000 of the increase from the Conservatives is for regular forces. Do the math, and you will see that it doesn't even restore troop strength to pre-93 levels, yet you complain about it.

None of this has anything to do with the Conservatives' poor fiscal planning. Why did you post it?

Quote: So, you're either for restoring it to pre-93 levels -- in which case you'll support the Conservatives' increase -- or you are for having a military that was designed to eliminate a deficit more than a decade ago.

No, I could choose any point in between. Take your false dilemma and shove it.

Quote: Paul Martin cut troop strength by about 22,000 regular forces. Under pressure from Conservatives while he had a minority government, he said he'd add 5,000. That would still leave the military 17,000 short while he was either Finance Minister or Prime Minister, and you want to continue having him in charge of it? :roll:

None of this supports your claims either. Why did you post it?

Quote: Here is a chart showing Canadian military spending and troop levels since 1946:

I can't imagine how this makes $5 billion more than $13 billion.

Quote: As for your long second reply, I'm not even going to bother with it because it's obvious that you just want to argue back and forth for the sake of arguing rather than debate the issue.

Yes, I can see how you would glean that from my statement "You haven't countered my argument, you've ignored it. I don't see any point in continuing the discussion past this post if you're going to do that. "

You didn't counter my argument, you ignored it. You didn't prove your point. You lost the argument. This conversation is over.

[Boondoggle]

Refrozen Seabass wrote: Do you think I'm some sort of military fanboy?

Nope. I think you're more of a socialist that either doesn't have an understanding of Canadian military history, or is against it. Therefore, you're not someone worth talking to on this subject.