The budget should be $25 billion to $35 billion a year instead of the anemic $14.3 billion earmarked this year and the Forces should have 90,000 people in uniform instead of the 62,000 authorized today, the defence committee said Thursday. However, Defence Minister Bill Graham isn't buying the idea. He said the last budget gave the military its biggest increase in 20 years.

"I understand from talking to the generals, the admirals and all the experts that you can only absorb so much money at one time," he told reporters.

"We've got the amount of money we need to do the job we have to do."

The senators argued that, in a world of escalating disasters, both natural and man-made, the military is likely to be more important to Canadian well-being over the next few decades than it has since the Second World War. And it needs more money and people.

"Canadians should think of Canada's military as a tool box for the government to use to fix things that are of vital interest to Canadians . . . our tools are rusting," the committee said.

The senators, led by Liberal chairman Colin Kenny, said defence spending increases announced in the last budget won't start to take effect for another three years.

The government has promised to enrol 8,000 new regulars and reserves, but the creaky recruitment and training system won't be able to get those new people into the field for five years or so.

Changes need to start now, the senators said.

The committee held hearings across the country and heard from senior generals and admirals, who often tried to put the best face on their situation.

The report skewers some of those bureaucratic comments.

For example, Vice-Admiral Bruce MacLean is quoted at length discussing budget shortfalls, lack of sailors and the need to manage an inevitable decline until the fleet is replaced.

"Should no resources be allocated to address these issues, this decline will be obvious to Canadians."

The reported inserted a "translation" of the admiral's comments: "We're falling apart and we think that Canadians will start to notice when the ships start to think."

A similar translation for the air force: "We're barely keeping up appearances here."

And for the army: "We are too underfunded to correct the weaknesses caused by past underfunding, we are too underfunded to meet our current responsibilities and we are too underfunded to prepare for the massive changes you want that will allow us to serve Canadians in the future."

Kenny said the military has managed to improvise for years while short of money, short of equipment and short of people.

"We talk about the elastic band that you can't stretch any farther," he said. "They have muddled through up to now. What we're saying is that at some point the elastic snaps and we think we are at that point now."

Graham said that's an exaggeration and that the Forces are "getting better than they ever were before."

The report said it is urgent to come up with more money quickly, because the cumbersome procurement process can take 15 years to deliver a major equipment purchase.

"The lag time between when you push the button and when things actually start to work is exceedingly long," Kenny said.

The report said the navy's destroyers are going to be at the end of their service life by 2011, although the service hopes to keep them sailing to 2015. The supply ships are decaying and even the frigates are coming up for mid-life refits.

The air force needs new transports, both tactical and strategic, as well as a new search-rescue plane. And what comes after the CF-18 fighter-bombers are grounded in 2020 or so?

The army's needs are relatively simple: "More boots on the ground."

Graham said there will be more money down the road for new kit, including destroyers.

"As we go forward, we'll be looking at what other equipment we have to buy."

But he said the military has the money it needs today.

The senators said one problem is a lack of candour. The brass give answers that their political masters will be happy with. Political leaders want to curry votes and worry about expensive military purchase.

"Defending democracy relies on reciprocity - upon military leaders telling politicians and the public the truth about any given situation, upon politicians levelling with the public about what needs to be done in relation to what is being done and with the public rewarding this candour by caring about issues that are so vital to them."

The senators argued that, in a world of escalating disasters, both natural and man-made, the military is likely to be more important to Canadian well-being over the next few decades than it has since the Second World War. And it needs more money and people. I'm glad we didn't elect these morons. Escalating natural disasters? I guess the earth is angrier than it used to be.

The report said the navy's destroyers are going to be at the end of their service life by 2011, although the service hopes to keep them sailing to 2015. The supply ships are decaying and even the frigates are coming up for mid-life refits.
Our destroyers are falling apart? Oh shit, ma. I can't even count how many times I've been happy they were there.
There are literally trillions of better ways to spend money than on huge boats that float around our coast and do dick all.
I have an entirely new idea; the canadian government should hire 280 000 people at 50 000 a year each, to stand around and fart. It costs the same 14 billion, and the end result is the same–it makes life for the rest of us just a little less pleasant.

The military obviously must have more significant money from the government, but i think nobody really cares about this anymore, because you know the federal government is never going to increase spending on the armed forces like they deserve. There is always scrutiny towards the goverment of the state of our military, but they never do anything about it. In their mind Canada is Invincable.

Ldoto, what is the source for that article? Which Rag put that one out?

Wonderwall, your ignorance on so many things in your post is simply astounding.

The military obviously must have more significant money from the government, but i think nobody really cares about this anymore, because you know the federal government is never going to increase spending on the armed forces like they deserve. There is always scrutiny towards the goverment of the state of our military, but they never do anything about it. In their mind Canada is Invincable.
I think the problem is they still call themselves a military.

If you look at the things, outside of peacekeeping, that the Canadian Military does (shovel snow in Toronto, pickup icy powerlines in Montreal, etc.) they really don't do much warring anymore.

If the government took the natural disaster assistance and engineering work out of the military and instead under it's own department I think they would receive a reasonable budget.

Every time the population hears about military budget increases they thing about submarines and destroyers and complain about their money being spent on these items.

Turn the natural disaster units (DART and the like) into a deparment akin to fire or ambulance services and they will receive support.

I think our military definitely needs an overhaul. More funding is needed. We are already a 'middle power' do we wanna lost that title too?

I think Canada needs to improve its military by buying some new frigates and airplanes and helicopters. It is unfair to expect the military personnel to have to use antiquated machines that can put their lives at risk.
That said, we do NOT need more personnel in our military. I don't see the point.
That money should be put into foreign aid. Canada likes to think of itself as a giving country but in reality our foreign aid budget is amongst the lowest in the western world.

The government should make specific funding announcements to DART and other emergency service initiatives soCanadians can differentiate it from regular military funding.

SSIGUY 2 :
Good idea , thats give less money to Canadian Miltary and give more money to the rest of the world , what a BAD idea. Am I the only one who feels that we should look after our most respected and dedicated canadians first , before the rest of the world?

It's appalling how poorly Canada's military is funded. Not only are we finding it next to impossible to respond to global emergencies (Tsunami for one) but will soon not be able to meet our NATO commitments due to aging equipment. Defence spending needs a huge increase but it will be a long time before that happens. Most Canadian's see the military as "peace keepers" who don't fight wars. I've often heard people say they would like to join the Canadian Forces and become a "peace keeper" :bash: Anyways here is a chart which shows how far behind our military spending is.

http://www.defenselink.mil/pubs/allied_contrib98/b-6.gif

Canada's sovereignity in the arctic cannot be maintained unless we're able to sustain a constant presence there. I'd also like to see Canada do more peace keeping. However, I don't find it unreasonable that our defence spending per capita is lower than average. We aren't in a location or situation that would warrant it. And there are plenty of other areas that could use the funds - including debt repayment.

We need a better funded military. We don't have enough ships or aircraft for deployment so we usually have to borrow from someone else (ex: the Americans) if we want to get anywhere. Not only does this mean that our position as a peacekeeper is in danger but also our own national defense. We also don't have enough ships for our Coast Guard. If we don't have a robust Canadian Forces then even little Denmark will pick on us. As other people have said, the Forces help us maintain our sovereignty.

I just found this on CNN's website. This is how the world sees us!
http://www.cnn.com/2005/WORLD/americas/09/29/canada.defense.ap/index.html

The Liberal's obviously don't see defence as an important issue. IT IS!

We can't expect the USA to help us, we are one of the richest countries in the World if Denmark can defend its self we sure as hell can.

^^So true

^ well the liberals have increased military spending by alot in the last few years, and canada doesn't need a large military. No one is going to invade the artic and take away our islands,Hans island belongs to Greenland/Denmark anyway.

The Liberal's obviously don't see defence as an important issue. IT IS!

We can't expect the USA to help us, we are one of the richest countries in the World if Denmark can defend its self we sure as hell can.[sic][sic][sic][sic]
I would be more inclined to respect this kind of opinion if I were more sure you never voted.

If you look past all the "CNN! BREAKING! NEWS!!" bullshit!, how could you think the world was getting more dangerous? Just because cable news seems to have gotten grimmer doesn't mean the world is turning to shit. Accepting that a coast guard is a nice thing to have, and (domestic) disaster relief; when was the last time we needed diesel submarines? when was the last time we needed navy destroyers? Note I used the word we. If we got rid of all the superfluous large-scale crap, ie: tanks, submarines, huge warships, canada could afford new coast guard helicopters, search and rescue gear, etc. You know, stuff to _defend_ canada. It seems quite a perversion of the word defense to use it to kill people abroad.

youaretoblame, the Liberals stripped military spending in the 80s and 90s, then just recently the party dropped a quarter into the military's hat. 90,000 troops, w/ more and newer equipment + an annual funding of $24-30 billion is what Canada needs for its geographic size.

What evidence do you have that Hans Island is part of Denmark? It's written in the agreement hundreds of years ago that the British handed over all colonial lands, including Hans, to us in Confederation. If we lose Hans Island, we've got a lot more to lose - the Northwest Passage which is clearly in Canadian waters. Temperatures are rising in the arctic and nations will want to turn Canadian waters into international waters for shipping and trade.

youaretoblame, the Liberals stripped military spending in the 80s and 90s, then just recently the party dropped a quarter into the military's hat. 90,000 troops, w/ more and newer equipment + an annual funding of $24-30 billion is what Canada needs for its geographic size.

The liberals were not in power for most of the 80s.

The liberals were not in power for most of the 80s.
Bringing facts to a FUD flinging argument is against the rules.

I think that it would be very short sighted if canada reduced its military anymore than we have. What would happen if a major conflict happened in the world akin to WWI or II? It would take canada years to construct any sort of defence. Military personel are not trained to clean up after disasters, they are there to defend the interests of our country. From what I know the emergency plan for vancouver is to have troops fly into vancouver from edmonton. It would take days to lease planes for the transport. We only have 32 transport planes of which none are based west of winnipeg. So, 32 planes to help over 2 million people.

Currently canada is 32 or 35th in the world involving peace keeping so we can't even pull the peace keeping card anymore. Our soldiers join to fight for us, the least we can do is support them and give them a fighting chance if something did arise.

How about quadruple?
And what we need isn't just more troops, it's better equipment, like tonnes of airforce fighters, and cargo planes that can actually take CANADIAN soliders to their destinations.
Land fighting tanks and such aren't a necessity anymore.
More ships, more aircraft, and more men. The end. :cheers:

I don't think Canada's miliary budget should be increased. Canada does not need any more thugs and hired killers.

I would be more inclined to respect this kind of opinion if I were more sure you never voted.

If you look past all the "CNN! BREAKING! NEWS!!" bullshit!, how could you think the world was getting more dangerous? Just because cable news seems to have gotten grimmer doesn't mean the world is turning to shit. Accepting that a coast guard is a nice thing to have, and (domestic) disaster relief; when was the last time we needed diesel submarines? when was the last time we needed navy destroyers? Note I used the word we. If we got rid of all the superfluous large-scale crap, ie: tanks, submarines, huge warships, canada could afford new coast guard helicopters, search and rescue gear, etc. You know, stuff to _defend_ canada. It seems quite a perversion of the word defense to use it to kill people abroad.

dude....how insanly ignorant are you?! The world is getting worse, no CNN is not just reporting more on war and chaos because they feel like it! There are more wars there is more chaos in the world today then there was when i was a little kid even much less 30 40 years ago. If you cant see that then you must be blind and deaf

its very pathetic really that Canada isnt giving its military more money, we are the only G7 country to be running a budget surplus, people dont realise how significant that is, you know your rich when your apart of the G7, and you realy frigan know your rich when your the only G7 country with a surplus. With oil prices so high our government is bringing in billions more, we have a large trade surplus including with the United States. Although a higher dollar has a negative effect on exports they always seem to recover, plus a higher dollar makes imports cheaper. And with a higher dollar you get more country's wanting to invest in Canada pumping additional money into the country. Despite "financial problems" that seem to make it onto the news so much concerning healthcare and education and stuff, we have to admit that Canada is rolling in the doh and our financial situation is that only of a dream to other country's...including America which is going into debt by almost by the same ammount every year as canada's TOTAL debt which we are paying off slowly.
Givin all this, it seems kind of retarded that our Military spending is among the lowest of the Industrialized nations!
Another thing, Canada needs to stop relying on other country's to supply our military needs!!!!!
Canada needs to get Bombardier to design and build a fighter for Canada's military to replace the CF-18's, we need to get GM of canada or some other company capable of it to build our own Canadian designed tanks. This stuff all comes with a large price tag but in the end its money that stays in Canada and goes to the Canadian economy.

Does Canada has terrorists attacks ? Does Canada make war ? What kind of threat could justify a higher defense budget ? I believe it should be cut, rather.
Army doesn't increase peace, it actually decreases it. No army -> peace.

^ You can't use that as an excuse not be be prepared for the worst. No, we haven't had a terrorist attack yet, but it could happen... and what happens when we get attacked? Do we ask the Americans for help, or should we be prepared to take action by ourselves?

Sure, you're right. It "could" happen. Yet it hasn't, and I can't see why would terrorist attack a country such as Canada ? US are used to attack poor countries, most often to take their resources (/to bring democracy ?).
They just get the consequences, they have never been so insecure since 9/11, despite dramatic army budget expenditure.
It has not been the case with other countries. How often are Sweden, Deutschland, or France being attacked ? Then, only a small army is really necessary, so keep the money for other things. And I think most people who argue for a more powerful army are:
-power fanatics : can't be helpful for democracy
-counter strike fans : same
-military lobbies : same
-brainwashed teen : stop watching TV

dude....how insanly ignorant are you?! The world is getting worse, no CNN is not just reporting more on war and chaos because they feel like it! There are more wars there is more chaos in the world today then there was when i was a little kid even much less 30 40 years ago. If you cant see that then you must be blind and deaf
Actually, the number of wars have declined. There was a lot more wars/conflicts going on in the 60's, 70's & 80's. They were just overshadowed by the on going cold war.

Egypt - Israeli war
India-Pakistan war
China - India conflict
Pol Pot in cambodia
Vietnam war
Idi Amin
Belgan Congo plus numerous other Africa conflicts.
Iran - Iraq war
Coups in South Korea
Saddams atrocities

I am sure there are many others.

Go further back....WW1, Stalins atrocities, the Holocaust, WW2, Korean War....well you get the picture....

There are about 20+ different wars going on right now. FYI

Actually, 39 to be exact... http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/world/war/

I think the world is a safer place but thats not an excuse to have an underfunded army. Im not suggesting we build an army like the USA and start wars. A millitary doesn't just go around killing people. Look at the Hurricane Katrina our troops are down there helping people, Canada has a strong tradition of peace keeping and its a shame to see that reputation going down. We are flying helcopters from the 50's the Millitary is becoming an embarrassing joke which is sad because we have well trained Troops just bad equipment.

^ Totally agree.

Yeah seriously, what happens if there's another World War or something?
Canada will be one of the first nations needed. Sure we can wait it out a little while and build up our military quickly, but it's better to have most of it already in service rather than not.
Like I said earlier, more ships, more aircraft, and more men.

dude....how insanly ignorant are you?! The world is getting worse, no CNN is not just reporting more on war and chaos because they feel like it! There are more wars there is more chaos in the world today then there was when i was a little kid even much less 30 40 years ago. If you cant see that then you must be blind and deaf

Actually, war has gone down significantly as Skyscraper1 posted. It seems to have gone up because of a combination of media (ie CNN) and the fact that the US is more involved in them then before.
Another thing is that the 90's was generally a quiet and peaceful decade in an otherwise very violent 20th century. Now that there are more wars than there was in the 90's, it just seems that the world is going to hell.

Look at all the hotspots right now:
Middle East--Currently we have Isreali-Palistanian, Iraq-US, Iran-US, Chechnya-Russia
Previously we had Isrealis-Egypt, Lebanon, Syria, Jordon, and Palistine (various wars); Iraq-Iran; Afghan civil war; Chechnya civil war; Iraqi-Kuwaiti

South-Asia--Currently there is only the remnants of the Sri Lanka civil war
Previously there was the Full fledge Sri Lanka civil war; India-Pakistan; India-China (not full fledge war though); Suez crisis

South-East Asia--Currently there is the Korean penninsula cold war
Previously there was the Korean war, Vietnam war, Chinese civil war; Cambodia civil war, and I know I'm missing quite a few

Africa--Currently there is the Sudan war and the remnants of Ivory Coast
Previously there was too many to count including the more famous Rwandan Genocide and Somalian war.

Latin America--Currently no wars but many civil strifes and terrorists.
Previously there was regular civil war and coup d'etat. Military overthrows were everyday events.



So, war has gone down significantly over the last decade.

90's had it's share of wars, off the top of my head, some of the major ones... Kosovo, Somalia, Haiti, Iraq the first, and so on. Every decade has had it's share of war IMO.

Not to deny 90's did'nt have it's share of wars, and some pretty nasty ones at that. But was tyring to point out that it quieted down from the period of 1940-1970 which in my opinion was one of the violent episode of war for this decade.

We should diffenatly build up the military though.

Actually, war has gone down significantly as Skyscraper1 posted. It seems to have gone up because of a combination of media (ie CNN) and the fact that the US is more involved in them then before.
Another thing is that the 90's was generally a quiet and peaceful decade in an otherwise very violent 20th century. Now that there are more wars than there was in the 90's, it just seems that the world is going to hell.

Look at all the hotspots right now:
Middle East--Currently we have Isreali-Palistanian, Iraq-US, Iran-US, Chechnya-Russia
Previously we had Isrealis-Egypt, Lebanon, Syria, Jordon, and Palistine (various wars); Iraq-Iran; Afghan civil war; Chechnya civil war; Iraqi-Kuwaiti

South-Asia--Currently there is only the remnants of the Sri Lanka civil war
Previously there was the Full fledge Sri Lanka civil war; India-Pakistan; India-China (not full fledge war though); Suez crisis

South-East Asia--Currently there is the Korean penninsula cold war
Previously there was the Korean war, Vietnam war, Chinese civil war; Cambodia civil war, and I know I'm missing quite a few

Africa--Currently there is the Sudan war and the remnants of Ivory Coast
Previously there was too many to count including the more famous Rwandan Genocide and Somalian war.

Latin America--Currently no wars but many civil strifes and terrorists.
Previously there was regular civil war and coup d'etat. Military overthrows were everyday events.



So, war has gone down significantly over the last decade.

I see your point, but in the past few years things have just gotten worse and worse, it seems like there is no end to it...and i dont believe there will be any time soon. If it keeps up at this pace then Canada's military will be called on in the future to go on operations that we currently would not be capable of due to lack of equipment and most of all manpower. But i guess despite all that is happening now...time will tell.

Does Canada has terrorists attacks ? Does Canada make war ? What kind of threat could justify a higher defense budget ? I believe it should be cut, rather.
Army doesn't increase peace, it actually decreases it. No army -> peace.

Does Canada has terrorists attacks ? - Not yet per se, but Canada has been targeted officially by Al Qaueda and Bin Laden has announced that Canada is on his list of countries to be attacked. It is the only country other than Italy that he has listed as being a target which has yet to be attacked. How many times does someone have to fly a plane into a building or bomb innocent civilians before you start to take them serious? Also these terrorist attacks are attacks the freedoms, values and way of life which Canadians hold dear. It's not a matter of if, but when and we have to be ready to repsond to this threat.

Does Canada make war? - Canada fights wars yes, but if what you meant to ask was "Does Canada Need a Military that is Capable of Invading Nations for Un-Just Reasons?" then the answer is no. I'm guessing that due to your complete and utter ignorance of all things military you assume that a country needs to be an aggresor and start wars for no reason to have an adequatley funded military.

What kind of threat could justify a higher defense budget ? -

1) The threat of Canadian equipment causing more harm to our soldiers then the enemy. Helicopters which are double the age of the pilots flying them, who are also unable to get their required monthly air time due to a need for increased maitenence. Soldiers in Afghanistan who are patrolling areas infested with land mines and IED's in unarmoured Iltis jeeps. Navy destroyers and supply ships that are already well past their expetected life time and are currentley being asked to add more years to their already aging structures and technology.

2) The threat of natural/manmade disasters or global humanitarian missions and our inability to respond to them. Canada's DART (Disaster Assistance Response Team) should not have to wait weeks until transport planes are made available for lease from countries such as Russia.

3) The threat of not being able to fulfill NATO missions and the further risk of becoming a less signifigant nation on the global scale. Due to underfunding Canada is finding it increasingly difficult to meet equipment and manpower needs for NATO missions.

Army doesn't increase peace, it actually decreases it. No army -> peace. - Don't get me wrong I'm all for peace. It would be great if there was never another war fought and humanity could learn to live peacefully together, but that is living in a dream world. There will always be whackos and other threats who will want to destroy our nation/government/way of life etc. Being prepared for these people does not decrease peace.

Canada could also learn alot of lessons from Australia, a country which has purchased M1-Abrams tanks and the new Eurocopter Tiger Attack Helicopter. Not saying that these are things that Canada necessarily needs but the Australian goverment seems to be much more efficient, business like when it comes to defence spending. Always getting the best bang for their buck while Canada seems to suffer from poor economic descision making when it comes to defence spending :bash:

dude....how insanly ignorant are you?! The world is getting worse, no CNN is not just reporting more on war and chaos because they feel like it! There are more wars there is more chaos in the world today then there was when i was a little kid even much less 30 40 years ago. If you cant see that then you must be blind and deaf
Thank god I'm not the only one to refute this tiring sciolism.

http://www.umanitoba.ca/libraries/units/archives/canada_war/tribune/photographs/vietnam/Peace_rally_67_14.jpg
Look at the clown in this picture; he doesn't even know the Vietnam war never happened. In fact, violence was invented by Bin Ladin on sept. 11th. – the first instance of global terrorism ever –– ever.

A great number of these "WE NEED MORE MONEY FOR OUR MILITARY!!!" arguments rely on the greatest of all reasoning; "'cause we do!!!," perhaps with cursory reference to nato commitments and global power. There was a chart posted on the first page of this thread showing both total, and per capita military spending, with the great nation of Kuwait being on top. In fact, The US is rather an anomaly in the top 5; all the others are in the mid east. Japan barely even shows up on this list, and they still get invited to g8 meetings over Oman don't they? Don't confuse being a highly developed country with wasting tons of money on a military. As for NATO, well… the wall was still down the last time I checked.
Let's speak softly and carry nothing; a big stick wouldn't protect us from terrorism anyway.

Just FYI, not everybody who supports full / partial RESTORATION in funding for the military is saying it just because we buy into the world is a more dangerous place now more than ever BS. So kindly step off the Michael Moore soapbox.

Canada is one of the richest countries on Earth. We can afford an advanced military.

[QUOTE=Wonderwall]
A great number of these "WE NEED MORE MONEY FOR OUR MILITARY!!!" arguments rely on the greatest of all reasoning; "'cause we do!!!," perhaps with cursory reference to nato commitments and global power. /QUOTE]

Funny, the people against military expansion common argument is "cause we don't"...What's your point here?

The fact of the matter is both sides have very good arguments for/against increased military expenditures but you may have chosen to ignore it.

On the pro-military side, the arguments are as follows:
-The military vehicles currently in use are antiquated and a potential threat to the safety of the troops.
-The antiquated military also forces us to rely on other country recourses which is a slight loss of sovereignty. Just look at Katirina and the fact that we had to get assistance form the US to refuel.
-As you mentioned above, yes we do have NATO commitments and are a global power. But also, we as a country have always prided ourselves in being a peace broker and a middle voice. You do need a decent military to voice that view.
-In the event of any major war or disaster (Vancouver earthquake?), the military is underserved.

The point is that we don't need to place so much money into the military that we become a massive power. This is some idealogues view, but not the most common. The most common is simply to repair the problems occured in the last decade due to cuts.
Just like we have pushing to fix the falling healtcare, education, social service, energy, infrastructure by funding these services, it's only fair that military gets an increase as well.

Sure, you're right. It "could" happen. Yet it hasn't, and I can't see why would terrorist attack a country such as Canada ? US are used to attack poor countries, most often to take their resources (/to bring democracy ?).
They just get the consequences, they have never been so insecure since 9/11, despite dramatic army budget expenditure.
It has not been the case with other countries. How often are Sweden, Deutschland, or France being attacked ? Then, only a small army is really necessary, so keep the money for other things. And I think most people who argue for a more powerful army are:
-power fanatics : can't be helpful for democracy
-counter strike fans : same
-military lobbies : same
-brainwashed teen : stop watching TV



Your sill if you think you are immune. The French just a few weeks ago said they revealed a plot by Islamic extremist who were plannig to blow up the Paris Metro!!!! Not to mention that the 9-11 hijackers got inspiration from an Islamic group who hi-jacked a plane and intended to fly it into the Eiffel Tower.
Mind you that this is the most anti-American Western nation on earth and who spearheaded the action against the war!!!!!!! It seems like they really paid off those extremist well.

You are in Afghanistan if my memory serves correctley. Do you think Bin-Ladin and his crew want to give Canada a mulligan for Afganistan? They think of Canadiens, French, Americans, Germans as all the same infidels. You are naive to beleive otherwise.

If Canada was a target, it would have been hit long ago.
It's much easier to hit Canada than most countries really.

^ they're saving the easiest for last.

If Canada was a target, it would have been hit long ago.
It's much easier to hit Canada than most countries really.

They'll attack us when our level of awareness and caution goes down...when we least expect it. The element of surprise has always been their forte.

Just FYI, not everybody who supports full / partial RESTORATION in funding for the military is saying it just because we buy into the world is a more dangerous place now more than ever BS. So kindly step off the Michael Moore soapbox.

We as of yet don't know what BS you are buying into, though.

Funny, the people against military expansion common argument is "cause we don't"...What's your point here?
Let's take this to example in a court. If a defendant were to say, "I'm innocent. I have no proof", and the prosecution were to say, "he's guilty. I have no proof" do they compromise and say he deserves half the time he would get if he were convicted? The onus is on those claiming that we need more military spending.

On the pro-military side, the arguments are as follows:
-The military vehicles currently in use are antiquated and a potential threat to the safety of the troops.
-The antiquated military also forces us to rely on other country recourses [?] which is a slight loss of sovereignty. Just look at [Katrina] and the fact that we had to get assistance [from] the US to refuel.
-As you mentioned above, yes we do have NATO commitments and are a global power. But also, we as a country have always prided ourselves in being a peace broker and a middle voice. You do need a decent military to voice that view.
-In the event of any major war or disaster (Vancouver earthquake?), the military is underserved.

-Dangerous seaking helicopters belong to the coast guard, and it sucks for them that they have to be linked to the army. Dangerously unarmoured jeeps, though: if they aren't safe, don't send them. This is just the military passing the buck for using them in an unsuitable situation. A more important question though: does canadian soldiers being in Afghanistan make me safer than if that money were spent on more police, etc?
-this second jumble of words (rather than a sentence) could have two meanings, depending on whether you meant recourses or resources. If it was recourses you meant, then I would illustrate that the purpose of the department of defense is not punitive justice. If it was resources you meant, then I would wonder how canada helping the U.S. illustrates the threat to canadian sovereignty
-I did mention nato, but I guess you missed the part about the wall being down. Nato is dead, pally, -- unless you've figured out who the new evil empire is.
-Short answer, we need more submarines to take care of earthquakes. The budget for the dod is not $0, as some of these arguments would lead us to believe. If the 14 000 000 000 they already recieve weren't squandered on useless large-scale hardware, they could do a lot more good.
You should be careful when you say canada has always done something; it's not a good idea because that's what we used to do –– it's a good idea if it's still a smart thing to do. I don't measure myself by what people I've never met do, so I can't take any pride in what "canadian peacekeepers" do. The canadian government should step back from legislating morality by making us give, and let us decide for ourselves where we want to donate.

This is a political debate, not a court room drama. The onus is on both sides to prove there case, not on one side to prove he is innocent or guilty. I don't even know how you conjured this comparision up.

Either way, I was trying to point out that those who are pro-military have legitimate arguments which I have posted. They don't simply say "cause we do". That was the jist of my argument.
You are now counter arguing my points, which quite frankly I don't really care to argue because if you did'nt notice, I was using simple general point forms.
However, I did discredit your presumption that the pro-military stance has no decent debates.
P.S. I for one am not even pro-military. However I do believe the funding should be increased as it has been cut very significantly and it is only fair that with the new regime of consistent surpluses, it is fair that this department shrare as with all other spending programs.

-Dangerous seaking helicopters belong to the coast guard, and it sucks for them that they have to be linked to the army. Dangerously unarmoured jeeps, though: if they aren't safe, don't send them. This is just the military passing the buck for using them in an unsuitable situation. A more important question though: does canadian soldiers being in Afghanistan make me safer than if that money were spent on more police, etc?


Man where the hell are you getting your information from? You really show how clued out you, and the majority of the Canadian public, are when it comes to issues regarding the Canadian Forces.

First of all the Coast Guard does not own a single Sea King. Never did they ever own Sea Kings. The sole operater of Sea Kings in Canada is the Air Force who provides them to the Navy frigates and Destroyers (Naval Air). And whats all this talk of linking with the Army? The Sea Kings are strictly maritime helicopters which the Army never deploys but maybe hitches a ride on once in a while.

To answer your question regarding Afghanistan, yes it does make you safer. How the hell would police be able to hunt down terrorists such as Al-Qaeda and the Taliban? They might do a good job of it within our borders but police aren't gonna hit them on their home turf in countries such as Afghanistan. This is their homebase where they devise plans to attack us! Don't you remember that these same terrorists attacked England, Spain, Australia and the U.S.? Would you just prefer that we stand idley by why our Allies fight this war themselves? I'm sure they'd really appreciate that and would be glad to help us in our time of need. And its not all about making you safe. The Canadian Forces have helped rid Afghanistan of the Taliban, a terrorist group that suppresed and abused the people of Afghanistan for years. We've given Afghanis freedoms and rights that they previously never dreamed about. Its about making a difference in the world and doing the right thing. But the sad thing is there is alot more people in Canada like you that will never recognize this. You'd much rather continue living your life with your head buried in the sand, oblivious to the world around you.

Well, I think we should be spending the money to make sure our soldiers in Afghanistan are as best equipped as possible.

In the next five years, an additional $12.8 billion will be spent on the defence department; most of it will be used to increase the size of troops. The majority of new recruits are needed for Canada’s “stabilization and reconstruction” endeavours in Afghanistan, where 2,500 Canadian troops, six ships and six aircraft have been deployed. Teeming with young and healthy students, campuses are a logical source for new recruits to fill the ranks.

http://umanitoba.ca/manitoban/2005-2006/1005/810.campuses.and.canadas.gentle.military.php


http://news.google.ca/news?q=Canadian+Troops&hl=en&lr=&sa=N&tab=nn&oi=newsr

First of all the Coast Guard does not own a single Sea King. Never did they ever own Sea Kings. The sole operater of Sea Kings in Canada is the Air Force who provides them to the Navy frigates and Destroyers (Naval Air). And whats all this talk of linking with the Army? The Sea Kings are strictly maritime helicopters which the Army never deploys but maybe hitches a ride on once in a while.The "jist" of my point being: were the coast guard given separate funding, canadians would be willing to spend money on it.

To answer your question regarding Afghanistan, yes it does make you safer. How the hell would police be able to hunt down terrorists such as Al-Qaeda and the Taliban? They might do a good job of it within our borders but police aren't gonna hit them on their home turf in countries such as Afghanistan. This is their homebase where they devise plans to attack us! Don't you remember that these same terrorists attacked England, Spain, Australia and the U.S.? Would you just prefer that we stand idley by why our Allies fight this war themselves? I'm sure they'd really appreciate that and would be glad to help us in our time of need. And its not all about making you safe. The Canadian Forces have helped rid Afghanistan of the Taliban, a terrorist group that suppresed [sic] and abused the people of Afghanistan for years. We've given Afghanis freedoms and rights that they previously never dreamed about. Its about making a difference in the world and doing the right thing. But the sad thing is there is alot more people in Canada like you that will never recognize this. You'd much rather continue living your life with your head buried in the sand, oblivious to the world around you. How successful do you think a war on an ideal can be? Police can't hunt down the taliban in Afghanistan, that is true; they can, though, set up speed traps to catch street racers, roadblocks for drunk drivers, arrest people with illegal weapons – all things that are much more likely to kill me or someone else than global terrorism.
I really liked this one:
"We've given Afghanis freedoms and rights that they previously never dreamed about." Thank you, Mr. Frum.
Culpability for the state of Afghanistan rests with Russia. As I previously stated, the government should avoid legislating morality; by taking this mission, the canadian military has decided Afghanistan is the most deserving country in the world for our aid. That is a decision everyone should be able to make by themself.