SkyscraperCity banner
Status
Not open for further replies.
1 - 20 of 27 Posts

·
Ex-mod
Joined
·
7,931 Posts
Discussion Starter · #1 ·
Federal government quietly releases $490B military plan

Last Updated: Friday, June 20, 2008 | 4:51 PM ET
CBC News

The Conservative government has quietly released the details of its extensive plan to beef up the military, including spending $490 billion over the next 20 years to ensure Canadian soldiers are well-equipped, well-trained and highly active.

Details of the plan, known as Canada First Defence Strategy, were posted Thursday night without fanfare on the Department of National Defence's website.

The posting comes almost six weeks after Prime Minister Stephen Harper announced at a news conference that his government had a strategy for the military but provided few details about it. Critics at the time said the strategy was nothing more than a speech, since Harper offered no document to back it up.

Speaking in Halifax on Friday, Defence Minister Peter MacKay defended the nighttime posting of the plan, saying the government was simply striving to provide more specifics about the strategy to Canadians.

Military analyst Rob Huebert told CBC News that he can't understand why Harper would release the document so quietly, and why he would do so the day before the House of Commons is expected to adjourn for the summer.

Still, he praised the document's contents, saying the strategy appears to be a well-balanced assessment that juggles the military's commitments at home and overseas.

"I'm hard-pressed right at this point, looking at it, to be really overtly critical," said Huebert, associate director of the Centre for Military and Strategic Studies in Calgary. "I do think they've got a good balance on this particular aspect."

The opposition also questioned the timing and delivery of the announcement in Parliament Thursday.

Liberal MP Rodger Cuzner said posting the information online in the "dead of night" sounded like the actions of "a government with something to hide."

But Laurie Hawn, MacKay's parliamentary secretary, pointed to Harper's previous announcement, saying the information had already been posted on the government website and that Canadians "wanted more details on it."


$60 billion on equipment

The document, which stresses the importance of giving the Canadian Forces predictable and stable funding, says $60 billion must be spent on much-needed military equipment, such as helicopters, patrol ships, planes, destroyers, frigates, land combat vehicles and weapons.

A total of $15 billion of these equipment purchases has already been confirmed and announced publicly.

Other military spending over the next 20 years is to include:

- $250 billion on personnel, with the military's numbers increasing to 70,000 regular members and 30,000 reserve members. (Currently, there are 62,000 regular members and 25,000 reservists.)
- $140 billion on training and maintenance of equipment.
- $40 billion on military buildings and infrastructure.

The document suggests that in the next 20 years, the international community will be coping with failed states, rogue nuclear nations and the increasing threat of terrorism. It also notes that the military needs to enhance its ability to operate alongside U.S. forces.

"The Canada First Defence Strategy will enable the Forces to … address the full range of defence and security challenges facing Canada now and into the future," the document states. "This strengthened military will translate into enhanced security for Canadians at home as well as a stronger voice for Canada on the world stage."


Six core duties for the military


The document says the Canadian Forces will have six core duties over the next 20 years and will often have to juggle more than one duty at once in Canada and overseas.

The duties are:

- Conducting daily domestic and continental operations, including protecting Arctic sovereignty.
- Supporting a major international event in Canada, such as the 2010 Olympics.
- Responding to any major terrorist attacks.
- Providing aid to civilian authorities during natural disasters and other crises in Canada.
- Conducting a major international operation for an extended period, such as the Afghan mission.
- Have enough troops remaining to deploy to other international crises for shorter periods of time.

NDP defence critic Dawn Black questioned why the document does not stress the peacekeeping work of Canadian soldiers.

"The more and more we become meshed with American foreign policy… the less and less ability we have to be independent and have a clear Canadian voice on the international stage."






After this is all done, the jokes about one canoe and one archer being our military force would be a thing of the past.
 

·
Moderator
Joined
·
38,865 Posts
So that's roughly $24.5 Billion/year. We currently spend $17.15 Billion/year or roughly 23% of what France spends. How about doubling our planned expenditure to $49 Billion/year and we'll be at a level where we can become a significant player around the world again?

The size of our nation geographically, economically, and our aspirations regarding foreign policy dictate that we need a vastly larger and more capable military. Even Australia spends more than we do.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_and_federations_by_military_expenditures
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
687 Posts
IM sorry. but i think this is useless....
Why spend money on something we don't really need? As far as iM concern, not countries are attacking us... so why spend more for the army?:eek:hno:
 

·
Banned
Joined
·
362 Posts
- Conducting a major international operation for an extended period, such as the Afghan mission.
- Have enough troops remaining to deploy to other international crises for shorter periods of time.
Such as the Afghan mission?

What does this mean? Will Canadian troops be used to over throw other nations governments? What's next? North Korea? Venezuela?

We used to have a policy of peacekeeping then humanitarian intervention, both noble uses of a military. Yet, none of our current operations are for either cause. There are many wars and humanitarian issues that we could provide some calming effect. Darfur and Burma come to mind.

As for domestic needs, we definitely need a strong naval and air defence. However, there is less of a need for pumping more dollars into our ground forces beyond funding for domestic emergencies and for peacekepping/humanitarian intervention needs.

That said, this shouldn't cost nearly $500 billion over 20 years. That is alot of money that could be used to fight poverty, lower taxes, invest in infrastructure, etc, etc etc.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,718 Posts
IM sorry. but i think this is useless....
Why spend money on something we don't really need? As far as iM concern, not countries are attacking us... so why spend more for the army?:eek:hno:
It was one thing I learned in my last year of schooling, this is the new peacekeeping, blue helmets will not suffice anymore. Canada didn't change, the world did and we had to adjust accordingly.

We used to have a policy of peacekeeping then humanitarian intervention, both noble uses of a military. Yet, none of our current operations are for either cause. There are many wars and humanitarian issues that we could provide some calming effect. Darfur and Burma come to mind.
Untrue, that peacekeeping policy is a myth. It ended in 1956, it was very short-lived and I have no idea why people still think that is something that Canada does well. Are you saying that if we sent some troops to Darfur with some blue helmets that would solve anything? That idea is laughable, welcome to 21st century peacekeeping. This isn't the Suez anymore.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
6,589 Posts
As a member of the US Military and one who has worked with Canadian forces in Afghanistan, I commend Canada for their resolve and professionalism militarily. Canada is becoming a major enforcer of western foreign policy along with the US , UK and Australia. There are fruits of Canada's sacrifice if they stick it out, it's money well spent and it's appreciated surely.

:cheers:
 

·
Banned
Joined
·
362 Posts
It was one thing I learned in my last year of schooling, this is the new peacekeeping, blue helmets will not suffice anymore. Canada didn't change, the world did and we had to adjust accordingly.
Do we? Where do we draw the line? How proactive?



Untrue, that peacekeeping policy is a myth. It ended in 1956, it was very short-lived and I have no idea why people still think that is something that Canada does well. Are you saying that if we sent some troops to Darfur with some blue helmets that would solve anything? That idea is laughable, welcome to 21st century peacekeeping. This isn't the Suez anymore.
Well that isn't true, either. The Pearson government used it, Trudeau moved to middle power foreign policy. The PCs used a mix and Chretien focused on humanitarian intervention. But peacekeeping was never fully abandoned by our DoD. What I think is we should choose a path and follow it. My preference is that Canadian lives not be risked as much as possible.

As a member of the US Military and one who has worked with Canadian forces in Afghanistan, I commend Canada for their resolve and professionalism militarily. Canada is becoming a major enforcer of western foreign policy along with the US , UK and Australia. There are fruits of Canada's sacrifice if they stick it out, it's money well spent and it's appreciated surely.

:cheers:
What is western foreign policy? and why must it be enforced?

How are the billions being spent, and lives lost, in Afghanistan improving Canadians lives at home?

Why are we in Afghanistan, again?

I don't believe their is a clear goal. If it's nation building, we have some work here on the home front that is more important.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,718 Posts
When have we been proactive? We've been reactive in Afghanistan, but not proactive.

You need to rethink your preference, and stop being a bleeding heart, welcome to the real world son. Everything is not peaches and cream. The path we have chosen is the correct one. We are not starting wars, but stopping the the destructors of ideals.

Quimby, stop thinking about your god damn self for a moment. We are the enlightened, and we have a duty to make sure the rest of the world reaches that point. We can't have terrorists coming here and blowing up everything that we stand for. I like that our women can go out at day time in what ever clothing they want, even topless, or get an education.

Why are we in Afghanistan? Hello, 9/11? It was UN sanctioned too. I don't have all day to explain why we are there and why Afghanistan is a hotbed for the Taliban, but for your own good so you don't sound so stupid again, read Ghost Wars by Steve Coll.

Maybe this video will change your mind, and make you a proud Canadian.

 

·
Ex-mod
Joined
·
7,931 Posts
Discussion Starter · #10 ·
^ the vid doesn't work...may i ask what it is?


We have a good reason why we're in Afghanistan and I'm proud of what we're contributing there.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,644 Posts
When have we been proactive? We've been reactive in Afghanistan, but not proactive.

You need to rethink your preference, and stop being a bleeding heart, welcome to the real world son. Everything is not peaches and cream. The path we have chosen is the correct one. We are not starting wars, but stopping the the destructors of ideals.

Quimby, stop thinking about your god damn self for a moment. We are the enlightened, and we have a duty to make sure the rest of the world reaches that point. We can't have terrorists coming here and blowing up everything that we stand for. I like that our women can go out at day time in what ever clothing they want, even topless, or get an education.

Why are we in Afghanistan? Hello, 9/11? It was UN sanctioned too. I don't have all day to explain why we are there and why Afghanistan is a hotbed for the Taliban, but for your own good so you don't sound so stupid again, read Ghost Wars by Steve Coll.

Maybe this video will change your mind, and make you a proud Canadian.

Well said Canuck! :)
 

·
Banned
Joined
·
362 Posts
When have we been proactive? We've been reactive in Afghanistan, but not proactive.
I think declaring war upon a nation that has not done anything to us is proactive conquest.

You need to rethink your preference, and stop being a bleeding heart, welcome to the real world son. Everything is not peaches and cream. The path we have chosen is the correct one. We are not starting wars, but stopping the the destructors of ideals.
That is just a scary statement. who's ideals? What makes them right?
Statements like this sound eerily like propaganda to me.

Quimby, stop thinking about your god damn self for a moment. We are the enlightened, and we have a duty to make sure the rest of the world reaches that point. We can't have terrorists coming here and blowing up everything that we stand for. I like that our women can go out at day time in what ever clothing they want, even topless, or get an education.
Enlightened, isn't that the Islamic extremists reason, as well. A duty to force people to be like us. Historically that always back fires, see residential schools et. al.

As for freedoms, I enjoy them but to each their own. Every culture and religion has its positives and negatives. Ours is always looking out for #1.

Why are we in Afghanistan? Hello, 9/11? It was UN sanctioned too. I don't have all day to explain why we are there and why Afghanistan is a hotbed for the Taliban, but for your own good so you don't sound so stupid again, read Ghost Wars by Steve Coll.
9/11 right, so we caught Bin Laden 7 years later? No, haven't really tried to catch him. Right the Taliban and Al Qaeda, both created by the CIA. 9/11 is a red herring.

In conclusion, the manner in which you justify the war in Afghanistan sounds like the same rhetoric and propaganda spewed out by every regime in World history that was attempting to become dominate (World Domination). From the crusades to the USSR, this type of "logic" has been used to convince people that an unjust cause was just.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,718 Posts
I usually don't do this, but you brought this on yourself Quimby, you are getting the treatment. I'm usually quite reserved, but i'm going to let you have it.

I think declaring war upon a nation that has not done anything to us is proactive conquest.
Proactive conquest? Really? By whom may I ask. That is utter bullshit and you know it. I think they first declared war by highjacking four U.S. planes and flying them into the WTC, the Pentagon, and a field in Pennsylvania. This is their conquest, to destroy all non-believers. Don't believe me? Pick up a Koran, and until you do, don't answer me back.

That is just a scary statement. who's ideals? What makes them right?
Statements like this sound eerily like propaganda to me.
Oh yes, freedom of religion, speech, press, and expression is propaganda, are you stupid. Do you know anything about how backwards Afghanistan is??? I'm going to introduce a new acronym into SSC today, it's called DAFS. Do a fucking search. Because that is exactly what you need to do. If you cannot see how much more advanced and enlightened we are than them, you are blind. Enough with the Politically Correct nonsense, we are better than they are fair and square. Don't believe me? Ask any woman where they would rather live.

Enlightened, isn't that the Islamic extremists reason, as well. A duty to force people to be like us. Historically that always back fires, see residential schools et. al.

As for freedoms, I enjoy them but to each their own. Every culture and religion has its positives and negatives. Ours is always looking out for #1.
No, that isn't the islamic extremists reasoning. Our rights are universal, for every race, religion and creed. Our rights pertain to every sex. Theirs do not, and their duties come from a book that was written almost two centuries ago and we do not even know if its true. Our rights are based on a modern society, theirs not so much. We try to accomodate, they try to enforce on everyone. DAFS on honour killings.

9/11 right, so we caught Bin Laden 7 years later? No, haven't really tried to catch him. Right the Taliban and Al Qaeda, both created by the CIA. 9/11 is a red herring.

In conclusion, the manner in which you justify the war in Afghanistan sounds like the same rhetoric and propaganda spewed out by every regime in World history that was attempting to become dominate (World Domination). From the crusades to the USSR, this type of "logic" has been used to convince people that an unjust cause was just.
The Taliban and Al Qaeda weren't created by the CIA, DAFS on Qutb, and read Ghost Wars.

Rhetoric and Propaganda??? I'm sorry but who attacked who first? The U.S. did not go to Afghanistan until it was attacked first, forget the 80's that was long past, and besides, during that time the U.S. was in Afghanistan to HELP them fight against the Soviets. THIS WAR WAS JUSTIFIED BY THE UN. Can you not see that?
 

·
Banned
Joined
·
362 Posts
I usually don't do this, but you brought this on yourself Quimby, you are getting the treatment. I'm usually quite reserved, but i'm going to let you have it.
Vitriol like this is always followed by performance anxiety.


Proactive conquest? Really? By whom may I ask. That is utter bullshit and you know it. I think they first declared war by highjacking four U.S. planes and flying them into the WTC, the Pentagon, and a field in Pennsylvania. This is their conquest, to destroy all non-believers. Don't believe me? Pick up a Koran, and until you do, don't answer me back.
The hijacker were not Afghan soldiers. That would be the equivalent of the UK attacking Ireland because of the IRA. DAFS Red Herring.


Oh yes, freedom of religion, speech, press, and expression is propaganda, are you stupid. Do you know anything about how backwards Afghanistan is??? I'm going to introduce a new acronym into SSC today, it's called DAFS. Do a fucking search. Because that is exactly what you need to do. If you cannot see how much more advanced and enlightened we are than them, you are blind. Enough with the Politically Correct nonsense, we are better than they are fair and square. Don't believe me? Ask any woman where they would rather live.
Yes, Stalin said the same thing and so did another European tyrant in the last century. All those that wish to push their agend via any means have used this reasoning. DAFS of world history.

No, that isn't the islamic extremists reasoning. Our rights are universal, for every race, religion and creed. Our rights pertain to every sex. Theirs do not, and their duties come from a book that was written almost two centuries ago and we do not even know if its true. Our rights are based on a modern society, theirs not so much. We try to accomodate, they try to enforce on everyone. DAFS on honour killings.
Yes but alot of our belief system comes a book much older and unprovable, as well. Those in glass houses etc.

Rhetoric and Propaganda??? I'm sorry but who attacked who first? The U.S. did not go to Afghanistan until it was attacked first, forget the 80's that was long past, and besides, during that time the U.S. was in Afghanistan to HELP them fight against the Soviets. THIS WAR WAS JUSTIFIED BY THE UN. Can you not see that?
Afghanistan never attacked anyone. It was an international terrorist group.

The whole US helping vs. the USSR then abandoning them is what fanned the extremist flames in the first place. DAFS of Charlie Wilson's War, Afghanistan War, Afghanistan History.

The fact remains, if there is one lesson that can be learned from human history. It is those that have forced their ideals upon others have always met with a terrible fall. They have also all used the rhetoric of superiority to attempt to achieve that goal. Know your history or your bound to repeat it.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,718 Posts
Vitriol like this is always followed by performance anxiety.




The hijacker were not Afghan soldiers. That would be the equivalent of the UK attacking Ireland because of the IRA. DAFS Red Herring.




Yes, Stalin said the same thing and so did another European tyrant in the last century. All those that wish to push their agend via any means have used this reasoning. DAFS of world history.



Yes but alot of our belief system comes a book much older and unprovable, as well. Those in glass houses etc.



Afghanistan never attacked anyone. It was an international terrorist group.

The whole US helping vs. the USSR then abandoning them is what fanned the extremist flames in the first place. DAFS of Charlie Wilson's War, Afghanistan War, Afghanistan History.

The fact remains, if there is one lesson that can be learned from human history. It is those that have forced their ideals upon others have always met with a terrible fall. They have also all used the rhetoric of superiority to attempt to achieve that goal. Know your history or your bound to repeat it.

I'm just going to ignore some flaws in your agrument and have you answer only one question? Can you honestly say that we are not superior to Afghanistan? Please state reasons why as well.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,593 Posts
Quimby said:
My preference is that Canadian lives not be risked as much as
possible.
It's great that's your preference, as I'm sure it's shared with many, but the reality of Canada's situation, is that it's a founding member of NATO and has commitments to it. When and if Canada isn't making these commitments-leaves NATO, then you can sit around and stick your thumb somewhere. Meanwhile....


Quimby said:
I think declaring war upon a nation that has not done anything to us is proactive conquest.
Canada didn't declare war on Afghanistan. It's certainly not that simplistic. The US and the UK attacked Afghanistan..err..the Taliban because al-Qaeda and bin-Laden had terrorist training camps there.

The UN had authorised ISAF<<NATO(see Canadian commitments) to use force in securing the country. UN Article 51 - military action in self defence.

Quimby said:
Afghanistan never attacked anyone. It was an international terrorist group.
The Taliban were give Resolutions by the UN to turn over bin Laden for the terrorist bombings on US embassies('99) in Africa and to close terrorist camps in Afghanistan.

Then after 911 happened the US gave the Taliban several options to which they refused. The Taliban then offered to hand over bin Laden if he had a trial in a third country. This showed that they had the power to seize him and didn't at the initial request from the UN previously. Again see Article 51.
 
1 - 20 of 27 Posts
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top