NDP wants greater oversight of military
February 18, 2010 - 10:42pm
The NDP is calling for greater independent oversight for Canada’s military to increase transparency in what the party calls a system rife with “secrecy.”
NDP defence critic Jack Harris said creating the position of inspector general and the appointment of a civilian Judge Advocate General would boost public confidence and the “integrity and efficiency” of the Canadian Forces.
“We want to take it outside the club,” he said.
The inspector general would have the ability to probe procurement decisions, perform audits and investigate “serious matters” such as detainee transfers,
Dan Dugas, spokesman for Defence Minister Peter MacKay
Is an idiot, who somehow believes civilian oversight of the military would not be an improvement in the military fundtiionability, and indeed would block military improvements and function ability.
meanwhile, as MacKay's spokesperson plays the idiot....an extreme evangelical group in Winnipeg is bellying up to the public trough for 3 million dollars from the feds and 2.6 from the city of Winnipeg to build a Youth Centre downtown Winnipeg.....
Pat Martin, whom everyone loves to hate made a great comment about this, stating that he wondered if the religious group wanting to build outreach was called Youths for Allah, as opposed to Youth for Christ, if they would be getting close to 6 million dollars of public funding?
Mayor Katz is all for funding it, with borrowed money I might add......and is outraged I tell you outraged, that Pat Martin thinks governments should not be funding religious activities....
Lost the link for this but I am sure people can internet search for it, if they want more info.
Interesting find remind.
there should have been a permanent civilian oversight board after the Airborne fiasco...
And of course Pat Martin being on the correct side of things is interesting..... and I wonder where the outrage of mixing religion and state has gone?
I agree. The Can-Am military-industrial complex is pretty much a closed economy unto itself and accountable to only our bought and paid-for stoogeocrats. Too much stoogery going on for herr harper to be boosting military spending like he's committed the country to 2020 or whatever it is.
Yes please, let's have permanent civilian oversight of the military, especially of procurement. As far as I can see, anything goes in that respect and no one squeaks, mostly because they don't know what is happening.
In my opinion one of our biggest problems is that we DO have Civilian oversight in military procurement.
The military is being run like a business. If we need a new truck we can't just say well we want a Brand A truck because it's the best.
Because it is run like a business we need to put a tender in for multiple contracts from multiple companies. It's a very long dawn out process.
The worst thing is that the end product we settle on isn't often the best choice, it's the most economic. We end up picking a product that is not the best tool for the job. [And in a profession where one's quality of equipment can mean life or death]
We turn around few years down the road and say well clearly THAT was a waste of money that does not suit our needs time to start the process all over..
It is also common place to pay $200 for something that costs $20 in our "supply system". Because of the wild procurement shit that kind of price gouging is the norm.
Civilian oversight for stuff like this can be a catch 22.
The CF is starting to hire on civilians more and more for different jobs. They are starting to feel the effects, in some cases replacing a soldier with a civilian means paying the civilian more with more benefits. They have less training and much broader rules to follow.
Harper Bending to US on Sole-Source Fighter Purchase
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/harper-bending-for-us-on-so...
"The $16 billion deal to buy US F-35 Lightning II fighter jets is one of the biggest military projects in Canadian history.."
Gajillion -Dollar Stealth Fighter Now Easier to Shoot Down
http://www.wired.com/dangerroom/2010/06/stealth-fighter-mods-make-it-mor...
"Now one of the JSF's selling points was that it wouldn't have to worry too much about taking on anti-aircraft fire; the jet would be so stealthy that the ground-to-air guns would never find it. But according to a report published by Air Power Australia, the plane is easier to spot then originally advertised. In fact, it is demonstrably not a true stealth aircraft.."
http://www.winnipegfreepress.com/local/youth-centre-sparks-dispute-84764...
Here is a link about the evangelical youth centre if anyone is curious. I hadn't heard about it, but it was about 6 months ago.
It's pretty outrageous!
Harper Bending to US on Sole-Source Fighter Purchase
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/harper-bending-for-us-on-so...
"The $16 billion deal to buy US F-35 Lightning II fighter jets is one of the biggest military projects in Canadian history.."
Apart from Herr Harper dancing with joy around the Christmas tree at all the hi tech presents he got,
what the hell do we need an F-35 for?
Mackay just made the announcement - $9 billion for 65 F-35 Joint Strike Aircraft. Still negotiating support services for the jets. Coupled with the recent Navy spending, I shudder to think how much the Cons are spending on the military - as a time of great need for social welfare and infrastructure spending. These creeps have their priorities bass-ackwards.
In my opinion, the biggest problem we have with the Canadian military is that it exists.
65 F-35's sounds like more than any government could possibly need to patrol our shorelines. Isn't that what the Navy (with their new procurement announcements) is paid to do???
I think Opposition parties need to come together and organise protests against this incredible waste of taxpayer's money. The G20 was good target for mass protests; the Cons mis-management of the economy should be another. Who will step up and demand this wasteful defence spending be stopped or at least re-evaluated before an all-federal panel???
65 F35 fighter jets. How the f*ck can they in any way be justified??? Especially with homelessness, poverty, infrastructure, and other needs still outstanding???
Those are search and destroy oops I mean rescue jets. Thats why they have STOVL capabilities. You can't expect them to rescue people in F18s they need a long runway. Somehow I bet we get conventional one or ones missing parts to make them cheaper while we pay more, No bid tender as well. Just like the stupid Striker carriers we ordered after the US found them to be terrible machines in actual combat. Which was again no bid.
First question is this could have been built in Canada had the cons not been duped into thrashing our own aerospace program.
Second, Why are we buying fighter that can be bested by unmaned drones that don't have to rely on human body physiology for handling characteristics.
Third and most important, why is there a need for fighter jets? We aren't at war with fighter enabled nations, just tarra-ists. McKay says its about sovereignty...um the americans are the ones that call into question our sovereignty, and that is mostly from economic war not militarily. Wouldn't this be more useful in ocean vessels to protect our vast coast line now that the ice ways are gone because of catastrophic climate change.
Fourth...are we not in a time of austerity for all? But we are splurging again on more toys for the boys(and girls) in the military.
Can someone summarize all the spending announcements the military has had in the last 4 years(not the reannounced again and again ones either) I would be interested to see if they are putting this into the general revenue stream or if they are using some creative accounting and still 50 billion in the hole. Fiscally responsible my ass.
I agree, Boom Boom, but what are we supposed to do under a Harper majority government?
I think Opposition parties need to come together and organise protests against this incredible waste of taxpayer's money. The G20 was good target for mass protests; the Cons mis-management of the economy should be another. Who will step up and demand this wasteful defence spending be stopped or at least re-evaluated before an all-federal panel???
65 F35 fighter jets. How the f*ck can they in any way be justified??? Especially with homelessness, poverty, infrastructure, and other needs still outstanding???
Be careful the flag first people would be all over them as traitors. Give it to the cons they know their base, and how ignorant they can be in the face of facts.
I agree, Boom Boom, but what are we supposed to do under a Harper majority government?
I'd say throw the bastards out next time but the ConLibs have a lock according to the polls I've seen.
Take to the streets, I guess.
A very good method of oversight would be a retribution-free way for rank and file soldiers to have their political views aired publicly. I prefer unionization myself, but I would be willing to look at other forms of solutions. "Soldiers Council" has a nice ring to it.
A very good method of oversight would be a retribution-free way for rank and file soldiers to have their political views aired publicly. I prefer unionization myself, but I would be willing to look at other forms of solutions. "Soldiers Council" has a nice ring to it.
I like this.
The F-35 is an offensive, not a defensive weapon. We know this because of its stealth capabilities. If it was meant for the defense of Canada, it wouldn't need capabilities to defeat Canada's aircraft detection radar.
The only kind of planes Canada intercepts on occasion are Russian recon planes which Russia uses to gather data on Canada's arctic and arctic waters. These are big slow lumbering 'RBs' (recon bombers). You don't need fast stealth air dominance/superiority fighter/interceptors to counter this. Russia is not going to militarily attack or invade Canada.
As for 'ownership' of the Arctic Sea shelf and waters, Russia is trying to claim ownership through legal means. Russia has already made its official claim under international law and through the U.N. Canada had seriously better get off its ass and do the same and stop acting like Canadian 'ownership' is a given or is guaranteed.
The F-35 is also an unnecessary boondoggle in the U.S.A. The U.S. is fighting wars against Afghanistan, Pakistan, Iraq, Somalia, Yemen and is threatening Iran. The U.S. has no need for a F-35 type weapon for these kinds of wars.
The only kind of war that the F-35 is designed for would be a U.S. war(s) against Russia and China. Now we know bully boy Uncle Sam hasn't got the guts to wage war against Russia and China.
U.S. lawmakers can't say no to the arms industry because that would mean American workers would lose jobs in the states and districts they represent. Yet the American economy can't afford such useless and wasteful boondoggles.
What to do?
"Hey, I know: There's a guy named Stephen Harper. He's the President of Canada. He'll buy these expensive white elephants, no questions asked. Guar-on-teed!"
Mackay just made the announcement - $9 billion for 65 F-35 Joint Strike Aircraft. Still negotiating support services for the jets. Coupled with the recent Navy spending, I shudder to think how much the Cons are spending on the military - as a time of great need for social welfare and infrastructure spending. These creeps have their priorities bass-ackwards.
Yes, sadly the Harper administration is acting exactly the way one would expect a right wing militaristic fascist government would under such circumstances.
And what a colossal waste of money it is. They're not fit to govern.
It does not matter which bourgeois political part is in power, the decline of world capitalism will make them reveal their reactionary tentencies.
The bourgeoisie of each country will force their politcal lackies to arm the miltary, as they all prepair for the inevitable out come of capitalism; World War.
I hope you're wrong, Trippie. But I can't help feeling a little pessimistic right now.
$16 Billion For the Wrong Planes
http://www.thestar.com/opinion/article/836959--16-billion-for-the-wrong-...
"I mentioned that the Canadian government would likely be in the market for new planes, since the CF-18s were beginning to age. 'Yes,' the general said, pointing to the F-35. 'They're going to buy some of those.' That was March 2004 - more than six years ago..."
Marta Harnecker in her very interesting piece, "Latin America and 21st Century Socialism: Inventing to Avoid Mistakes", outlines what sorts of transformations of the military is going on and/or is required for 21st century socialism.
Covered topics include:
* Give the military responsibility for social projects
* Provide education in the spirit of the Constitution
* Give the armed forces big infrastructure projects
* Democratize access to top ranks
* Include people in the national defence
* Recover patriotic symbols and traditions
* Build territorial state sovereignty
The article is currently behind a subscription wall but MR often makes their articles available at a later date.
It goes without saying that the NDP has never and will never rise to this level. The best they can manage is to squawk about the amount of military spending and suggest ways to improve their "efficiency" with mock civilian "oversight".
Marta Harnecker in her very interesting piece, "Latin America and 21st Century Socialism: Inventing to Avoid Mistakes", outlines what sorts of transformations of the military is going on and/or is required for 21st century socialism.
Covered topics include:
* Give the military responsibility for social projects
What? Such as?
The military doesn't exist to build roads, buildings, etc. unless it's in furtherance of a military objective - that's why you have construction companies and works departments. In states with poorly developed governments, I could see this being necessary but we already have the organizations in place, both public and private, that specialize in exactly this type of work.
Anyone can become an officer - all you need is a degree. Or are you saying we should VOTE for our military officers - which would be absolutely ridiculous.
In what way? People are included in national defence.
Recover from whom and to what purpose? Promoting jingoism?
That's kind of a prerequisite to having a country, let alone a military.
That's all we need - more interference in the military by civilians who neither respect nor understand the military. I might as well "oversee" a particle accelerator - it would have about the same effect.
As for the military being "secretive" - what did you expect? It's the MILITARY. Is it supposed to advertise its operations?
I believe that the Canadian military in the last 10 years has become so integrated into the American command structure that they are in reality asking for oversight of NATO (aka Pax Americana)
This request from the NDP shows either a fundamental naivety about the real politics of our integrated military or a willingness to go along with the status quo by sticking to symbolic gestures that change nothing of substance. They should use their time and resources to talk about the integration of our military into an imperial command structure. After WWI canada said no more foreign masters leading the charge but we are once again loosing a major measure of military independence.
This is a massive story.
http://www.thestar.com/news/world/afghanistan/article/840053--leaked-u-s-files-expose-afghan-ugly-war?bn=1
This will surely cause people across the country pause for thought about the war.
This could be several magnitudes larger than the detainee document issue.
I think Opposition parties need to come together and organise protests against this incredible waste of taxpayer's money. The G20 was good target for mass protests; the Cons mis-management of the economy should be another. Who will step up and demand this wasteful defence spending be stopped or at least re-evaluated before an all-federal panel???
65 F35 fighter jets. How the f*ck can they in any way be justified??? Especially with homelessness, poverty, infrastructure, and other needs still outstanding???
I suspect we are buying these in part to lower the per unit cost of the aircraft for all of NATO partners who will be purchasing this plane. This will make it more cost effective in comparison to the Eurofighter, which is the major competition.
A lie. The UK is both purchasing the F35 and the Eurofighter, and is the most important partner in JSF program other than the USA.
You are absolutely right, RedRover. For those interested in intelligent commentary, I suggest:
http://www.salon.com/news/opinion/glenn_greenwald/2010/07/25/wikileaks/i...
http://journalism.nyu.edu/pubzone/weblogs/pressthink/2010/07/26/wikileak...
http://www.newyorker.com/online/blogs/closeread/2010/07/wikileaks-and-th...
Amy Goodman of Democracy Now basically devoted today's entire show to this story that will not go away.
This is a massive story.
http://www.thestar.com/news/world/afghanistan/article/840053--leaked-u-s-files-expose-afghan-ugly-war?bn=1
This will surely cause people across the country pause for thought about the war.
Let's hope so.
This could be several magnitudes larger than the detainee document issue.
The Detainee Document/Torturegate issue is a part of "this fucking mess we're all in." - "" quote from Apocalypse Now!
Ground Lofty F-35 Jets
http://www.ottawasun.com/comment/columnists/peter_worthington/2010/09/03...
"Perhaps the silliest justification for the proposed spending of 16 billion defence dollars for 65 yet-unbuilt F-35 Stealth fighter jets is that they'll deter Russian bombers from approaching our air space in the Arctic. Yet that's a reason issued by Prime Minister Stephen Harper's office.."
NATO countries - especially the USA and its Canadian puppet regime - are quite happy to raise the spectre of the Russian bogeyman forever while quietly accepting Russian help in transporting supplies and troops on their way to the slaughter in Afghanistan.
That's imperialism for ya.
The Lobby As a Component of Global Class War
http://www.maxajl.com/?p=4122
"the problem is that not all of the profits and jobs from sowing hell in the global south will be going into American coffers. Some of them instead will be flowing into Israeli coffers...
According to Aviation Week, Lockheed Martin will pay the Israeli aerospace industry 4 Billion dollars and conceivably 5 Billion to build the wings for 800 of the 3200 prospective F-35s..."
So Canada's commit to purchase F-35s will also involve huge profits for Israel of Canadian taxpayer dollars..
PM's Next Chief of Staff Most Recently Linked to a Major US Aircraft Manufacturer
http://www.hilltimes.com/page/view/chiefofstaff-10-04-2010
"Prime Minister Stephen Harper's designated new chief of staff was until last week a director of a major US aircraft manufacturer that is partnered with the defence industry giant Lockheed Martin in a bid to sell a fleet of premium attack and reconaissance warplanes to the US Air Force.."
with Ari Fleischer advising Harpo on media, A General from the US Army War College as Chief of the Army (Peter Devlin) and now Nigel Wright as Chief of Staff we should be seeing 'Old Gory' flying over Ottawa any day now
Its called fedding at the trough. We hate government except when we can call in favours for our friends at the public expense. Ironic isn't it.
This really stinks.
Americans obviously favor Harper and Conservatives as Canada's elected leaders, and so we have to wonder how much help Harper et al got from various American groups in his election campaigns. And the favors are returned with fighter jet contracts...
But the uselessness of Canada having "military advantage" is glaring too. We could buy 100s of them and still not dominate the major military powers, not even North Korea. Or Brazil for that matter.
This fighter jet contract is obviously being done for reasons other than military superiority.
Besides all that, Canada's direction should be towards peace, and planning for war means NOT planning for peace. Maybe the plan is to bomb the hell out of everyone until they stop fighting??
Defence Expert Decries Purchase of 'Shock and Awe' Fighter Jets
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/ottawa-notebook/defence-exp...
"Canada doesn't need the aggressice capabilities of next generation stealth fighters and taxpayers shouldn't be forced to fork over the $16 billion to buy them, a senior defence analyst says.."
Canada has never needed modern warships, modern aircraft or modern equipment for their military. Canadians, or many of them, past and present just simply don't believe in their military being well equipped. Canadians expect their military personnel to operate in rusty "Pontiac Sunfires" while all their allies have "Cadillacs". Even some countries far poorer and less developed have better equipment at times.
Many Canadians simply don't believe in their small military being well equipped.
It's the Canadian way....hip hip hooray.
Maybe quite true the F-35 is not needed but surely the answer is not the aging F-18s
Canada's allies have all gotten sucked into the imperial industrial complex. The centre core of the american economy is convincing governments all over the world that buying the latest generation of mass murder machines is about peace and security. Harper is merely trying to show his masters he knows how to play the game. Our citizens and our allies' citizens are unwilling partners in this evil incarnate. (Borrowing money on my behalf to buy killing machines)
How about a built in Canada fleet of ships to patrol our coastline. Who are we going to bomb anyway/ The US, Russia, Norway, Iceland or maybe China? Or will we use them while fighting alongside our IDF friends, to bring democracy to the people of the middle east?
F-35 Fighter Jets Agreement Contains A Withdrawal Clause, Feds Can End Deal
http://www.thehilltimes.ca/page/view/f35-10-18-2010
"The 2006 agreement for developing the controversial F-35 Stealth fighter jets contains a withdrawal clause that would allow a new government to end Canada's participation with no penalties...
The clause, combined with other clauses and timetables in the memorandum of understanding gives Canada the opportunity to withdraw at any time before it signs its first procurement contract in 2014.."
F-35 Fighter Jets Agreement Contains A Withdrawal Clause, Feds Can End Deal
http://www.thehilltimes.ca/page/view/f35-10-18-2010
"The 2006 agreement for developing the controversial F-35 Stealth fighter jets contains a withdrawal clause that would allow a new government to end Canada's participation with no penalties...
The clause, combined with other clauses and timetables in the memorandum of understanding gives Canada the opportunity to withdraw at any time before it signs its first procurement contract in 2014.."
Good!
Let's hope the Cons are voted out of office by then.
Tories Need to Ground F-35 Purchase While They Still Can
http://fullcomment.nationalpost.com/2010/10/28/john-ivison-tories-need-t...
"For their own sake, the Conservatives need to press pause on the largest military purchase in Canadian history. Many Canadians remain unconvinced the $16 - billion sole sourcing of 65 F-35 jets from Lockheed Martin is the best deal out there. That gnawing sense of unease will not have been calmed by the Auditor-General's report this week - or by ministerial statements since then.
A brief read of the A-G's report on the purchase of military helicopters suggests a host of reasons why allowing the Department of National Defence to dictate procurement is like asking an alcoholic to run a distillery..."
One can only hope Lightning will fly like an Arrow and take Harpers government for the ride.
Canada's F-35 Buy Could Trigger Arctic Arms Race
http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=21704
" [Michael] Byers is chair in global politics and international law at the University of British Columbia. He said there is no need for the stealth 'shock and awe' military aircraft in the North and senior US military officials have contradicted Canadian government claims of threats from aging Russian bombers near Canadian airspace..
Air force chief Lt Col Andre Deschamps told the House of Commons Defence Committee...if the planned purchase is cancelled, Canada's airforce would become 'irrelevant' for defence missions with the US and other countries in the NATO military alliance.."
I'm not even sure why Canada's leaders employ an army. Shouldn't they form an army only if someone declares war on them or threatens the citizens with invasion? That's the way it used to work. The whole idea of a standing army is extraoridinarily problematic because they usually don't stand around for very long. I agree that the F-35's are complete waste of money, it diverts scarce resources to something that is entirely non-productive. But, I would go further and suggest the whole army is [a complete waste] unless it is actively fending-off an attack. The NDP is the only party that is willing to go partly down that path, but not completely unfortunately.
We need civilian infrastructure and services in the far North not military. The Harpers just don't get it. We need a northern Coast guard and emergency rescue services, air ambulances etc. If they'd put some real money into things that real people need and do their damned jobs in Ottawa, the country would be a lot better off. I'll be voting NDP.
I'm not even sure why Canada's leaders employ an army. Shouldn't they form an army only if someone declares war on them or threatens the citizens with invasion? That's the way it used to work. The whole idea of a standing army is extraoridinarily problematic because they usually don't stand around for very long. I agree that the F-35's are complete waste of money, it diverts scarce resources to something that is entirely non-productive. But, I would go further and suggest the whole army is [a complete waste] unless it is actively fending-off an attack. The NDP is the only party that is willing to go partly down that path, but not completely unfortunately.
Canada actually had a long tradition of this - it's one of the reasons why the "militia" (AKA the Reserve Force) was so actively promoted. The problem became that, with the modernization of warfare, the requisite skillset required to fight a peer enemy needed constant, almost full-time upkeep. The other major problem was equipment - with the increase in military technology, the associated logistical requirements, maintenance, etc. required a standing infrastructure to maintain it. The ability of factories to rapidly convert to producing military technology decreases the more complicated that machinery becomes - and so a market starts up to fill the full-time armament niche. The more complicated the machinery becomes, the more expert the people have to be that use it - which goes back to keeping a standing army so that you retain your capabilities.
Were we to return to a militia-based system with an even smaller standing army than we already have, our ability to rapidly mobilize would be virtually non-existent (it's already pretty bad). The likelihood that we would have to do so is pretty low - actual threats to our country's territorial sovereignty are pretty few (and mild). That being said, as part of NATO, we're required to be able to fulfill the mutual-defence obligations that the treaty imposes on the signatories.
Ultimately, I think it boils down to a prioritization of "capability" over "inent". We want to stay on-par with the capabilities of A) our allies, and B) the most advanced of our peers that we assess as potential threats in the future. You don't bank on what you think the other guy WILL do, you bank on what he CAN do. That way, no matter what his course of action, you've got the capability to respond at the necessary level.
Paranoid - I know - but when have governments been anything else?
NATO is a cold war relic. It should have been dismantled years ago.
Ultimately, I think it boils down to a prioritization of "capability" over "inent". We want to stay on-par with the capabilities of A) our allies, and B) the most advanced of our peers that we assess as potential threats in the future. You don't bank on what you think the other guy WILL do, you bank on what he CAN do. That way, no matter what his course of action, you've got the capability to respond at the necessary level.
The above is prescription for an endless arms race. We are caught in a military alliance with an economy that is based on the production of war materials. I hope we never are able to keep up with the ever present American imperialist rush towards better and better WMD. The biggest threat to Canadian sovereignty has always been America and it still is. Giving them the keys to our country and economy to drive as they see fit is a way to stay in their good books abut not away to run an independent democratic country. The last thing this country needs is an economy enmeshed in the American military industrial complex.
The whole idea of Canada being able to "defend itself" is an absurdity in today's world. The only possible threat to our territory is our good and great friend, the American Imperium. They would certainly never allow any other power to capture Canadian territory, and it is beyond ludicrous to imagine that we could "defend ourselves" against them. So, what is the point of Canada having armed forces at all? I can think of 3 possibilities.
First, to provide not strictly military services, such as coast guard, search and rescue, and disaster relief. Secondly, to participate in UN sponsored peace keeping, as a contirbution to world stability. But thirdly, and most importantly, as a sign of our fealty to our Imperial overlords to the south. In feudal days, vassal lords were required to provide soldiers for the war making needs of their overlords, and so are we today.
Ultimately, I think it boils down to a prioritization of "capability" over "inent". We want to stay on-par with the capabilities of A) our allies, and B) the most advanced of our peers that we assess as potential threats in the future. You don't bank on what you think the other guy WILL do, you bank on what he CAN do. That way, no matter what his course of action, you've got the capability to respond at the necessary level.
The above is prescription for an endless arms race. We are caught in a military alliance with an economy that is based on the production of war materials. I hope we never are able to keep up with the ever present American imperialist rush towards better and better WMD.
I agree, though if we're going to have a military, we're going to have to keep it technologically current. That doesn't mean buying the most ridiculous, high-speed kit we can get, but keeping abreast to a reasonable degree.
I'd argue it's almost too late for that. Furthermore, Canada has its own MIC to deal with in most areas. That's what most countries do. Instead of paying outrageous sums to foreign corporations employing foreign labour, they pay outrageous sums to their own military-supply corporations which employ their own citizens. That way, the money's not lost - it just becomes wages (in part), which then become taxes and come back to the government. The only time they really step outside their systems is for more unusual purchases, particularly in areas where the patent is still exclusive.
The whole idea of Canada being able to "defend itself" is an absurdity in today's world. The only possible threat to our territory is our good and great friend, the American Imperium. They would certainly never allow any other power to capture Canadian territory, and it is beyond ludicrous to imagine that we could "defend ourselves" against them. So, what is the point of Canada having armed forces at all? I can think of 3 possibilities.
First, to provide not strictly military services, such as coast guard, search and rescue, and disaster relief.
If you made this the purpose behind having a military, you wouldn't have a military. There's no need to have any of those functions fulfilled by a military when you could make (and have made, in the case of the coast guard) a separate, civilian agency to do the job (or a combination of CG and SAR, with a second agency doing disaster relief). The reason the CF holds those tasks (SAR and relief) is because the military is the organization best equipped and trained to do them and keep costs low at the same time.
I'd say we're pretty crappy vassals. So far, the only really significant contribution we've made to anything that could be construed as US "warmaking" is Afghanistan. That's the first real combat deployment for Canada since Korea. The closest its even been, prior to Afghanistan, was getting attacked by the Croatians in the Medak Pocket (a UN mission).
I understand what you're saying, but I think your outlook is a little idealistic (regarding the first two circumstances you mentioned).
F-35 Purchase Could Be Ballot-Box Issue: MacKay
http://www.canada.com/news/purchase+could+ballot+issue+MacKay/3778436/st...
"The political battle over the government plan to spend $16 Billion on F-35 fighter jets may feature on the campaign trail in a possible spring election, Defence Minister Peter MacKay said Thursday...'It could very well be an election issue,' he said..."
'US World's Biggest Arms Seller'
http://www.presstv.ir/detail/150343.html
"The United States has topped the list of global arms sellers, with Israel, UAE and India purchasing the bulk of arms including fighter jets, says a think tank..."
The NDP is against ballistic missile "defence" and for controlling our own military toward peaceful ends instead of Washington handing Canadians their marching orders.
Meeting Canada’s development assistance obligations
Taking an active role in public health, especially the treatment and prevention of pandemic diseases such as AIDS
Stopping the militarising of development aid...
DEFENCE AND SOVEREIGNTY
New Democrats believe in:
Defending Canadian sovereignty militarily, socially and economically
Affirming that the primary purpose of the Canadian Forces is peace-keeping, defence and support during emergencies
Standing against nuclear arms build-up and rejecting any ballistic missile defence program
Prioritizing peace operations for each of our armed forces...
Canadian Armed Forces have been instructed by Washington for too long. It's time we had real leadership in Ottawa and not the vicious toadying to Uncle Sam as usual.
Backroom Trading May Have Led to F-35 Deal - By Stephen Maher
http://thechronicleherald.ca/Opinion/1219846.html
"The Tories say the F-35s are the only planes that meet Canada's requirements, that they were selected through competitive process by the previous government and that 65 of them will cost $9 Billion. None of that appears to be true. According to Ottawa Citizen reporter David Pugliese, the Defense Department expects to pay up to $21 billion, including maintenance, which is a lot of money.."
F-35s is a Liberal Party talking point on all things military in Canada's Parliament. This is the party that when in government, dragged us into Uncle Sam's military occupation of Afghanistan and provided all kinds of assistance to the US Military on the QT in Iraq. That whole party is full of baloney.
Harper Shifts Focus On F-35 Jets - by David Pugliese
http://www.ottawacitizen.com/technology/Harper+shifts+focus+jets/4552354...
"War in Libya used to defend need for better fighters.."
And since even the NDP demands we have the capability to bomb other countries for their own good it is not whether we need this types of military equipment just which arms dealer will we buy them from and at what price.
Ready Aye Ready we need those jets to protect people who want democracy.
I'm sure it was great consolation for the Libyan maternity ward, rebel and residential bombing victims of NATO that those bombs were intended to bring them "freedom".
Just think what kind of "freedom" Canada can bring others with the proposed new F-35s. ooh rah. [end dripping sarcasm]
And since even the NDP demands we have the capability to bomb other countries for their own good ...
Source?
I'm sure I heard - many, many times in fact - that the NDP is completely opposed to the F35 purchase. Good!
I thought so.
Jack Harris is the most vocal opponent, but Layton himself opposes the purchase as do probably most of the NDP caucus.
Heck even the libs are against the f-35...at least for campaign purposes
Fidel they called for air strikes on Tripoli so how does that not totally undermine their argument that we don't need this type of fighter. If the NDP wants us to fly NATO air missions in the middle east then we need the right planes. When you remove the moral underpinnings the arguments lose their impact and become meaningless pap.
The F/A-18 is a dedicated fighter/attack aircraft.
The F-35 is a dedicated fighter that has "stealth-iness" (not as good as the F-22 which is a dedicated stealth fighter), which the designers slung some bombs, air-to-air (defensive) and air-to-ground/surface (offensive) missiles and rockets on to give it a (somewhat) "attack" capability as an afterthought.
Hence, the F/A-18 is much better suited for the kinds of sorties flown in Libya.
Of course, that's not going to be the Harper administration's narrative.
They don't want the Canadian general public to know the truth.
Ottawa’s fighter-jet estimate ‘all hogwash,’ U.S. watchdog warns
Thx FMDR for confirming all parties are only talking about which jets we buy as our NATO ante and none are talking about getting out of that offensive alliance. Too bad we used to have one party with a nuanced view on peace and security. Now all our political elite have reached a consensus on Ready Aye Ready. Something we haven't seen since 1945.
I hope that the elite takes it one step further and institutes conscription. Then we will have a peace movement again.
Our CF 18's are very old and costing us a lot of money to keep them both flying and up to date with software/hardware and crap. I've heard that they don't "talk" very well with other allied countries air assets. I never saw them in Afghanistan (supporting the illegal unjust immoral war criminal war)
I'd rather see us get attack helicopters or transport helicopters. Our griffon helicopters are basically civilian helicopters with green paint. It's like taking your honda civic and painting it black and white and calling it a police squad car. Maybe appache gunships.
How much will it cost us in fines to cancel the F35 purchase? We scrapped the Chinooks a few years ago then ended up having to borrow them for Afghanistan and 'buy them back'. We also had that other helicopter purchase which the liberals (am i wrong?) canceled and it amounted to us paying more in fines than it would have if we just bought the suckers.
I've heard the liberals want to cancel the F35....but use that money for education of canadian soldiers. I could probably benifit fromgoing back to school and taking a major in spelling.
I've heard that they [CF-18s] don't "talk" very well with other allied countries air assets.
Do you think "deep integration" with the U.S. military is a good thing?
Turkey has cancelled its purchase of F-35s because the U.S.A. won't allow them to replace the software to override the communications integration aspect.
In 2003 Chretien was able to say no to Canada "officially" participating in the Iraq war. The more "deep integration" the Canadian military has with the U.S. military, the less able future Canadian governments will be able to make even passive resistance to entering imperialistic wars of the American Empire.
With the ballooning and yet uncapped costs of the F-35, I think any alternative would be less expensive.
I see what kind of context you are trying to put that in and it's a little too dramatic.
Do I think one multi million dollar fighter jet laden with bombs from country A should be able to effectively speak to country B's fighter jet while operating in the same air space? Yes without a doubt.
Would you want two doctors operating on you at the same time that can't speak to each other? Communication is vital.
Turkey has cancelled its purchase of F-35s because the U.S.A. won't allow them to replace the software to override the communications integration aspect.
I'm not sure what that means. But I know Canada has turned down offers for some fancy US equipment because they want us to go to them for repairs, spare parts and to fix it.
Is that really a surprise? No way. It's a busniess. I know if I go to some chop shop the warrenty on my Toyota is void.
In 2003 Chretien was able to say no to Canada "officially" participating in the Iraq war. The more "deep integration" the Canadian military has with the U.S. military, the less able future Canadian governments will be able to make even passive resistance to entering imperialistic wars of the American Empire.
You're soap boxing this Frmsldr.
Our fighter jets need to communicate to other fighter jets and also people on the ground. We will always be in a situation where our forces are working along side other countries.
I watched in vain as a helicopter from another country hovered over us and wouldn't land to pick up wounded soldiers and civilians because the helicopter pilots couldn't talk directly to us on the ground. There rules were they do not land unless they have direct communication with the people on the ground. So they flew over our heads for 20 minutes while people bled out on the ground.
Being former military I know you know how important communication is. 99% of friendly fire incidents are due to lack of communication. You can say what you want about big evil uncle sam and how much we don't want to be like them but in the context of our military and it's equipment, we simply need to be able to talk to our allies in the battlefield in order to be effective.
With the ballooning and yet uncapped costs of the F-35, I think any alternative would be less expensive.
Meh I agree. I can think of lots of things we can spend that money on given the current scope of our operations. Have the military pay for laser eye surgery to go along with the sex changes they already pay for. Some of our people need gastric bypass surgery, we don't wanna seem to offend them by kicking them out so lets bring them back down to a working size.
I see what kind of context you are trying to put that in and it's a little too dramatic.
Do I think one multi million dollar fighter jet laden with bombs from country A should be able to effectively speak to country B's fighter jet while operating in the same air space? Yes without a doubt.
Would you want two doctors operating on you at the same time that can't speak to each other? Communication is vital.
Turkey has cancelled its purchase of F-35s because the U.S.A. won't allow them to replace the software to override the communications integration aspect.
I'm not sure what that means. But I know Canada has turned down offers for some fancy US equipment because they want us to go to them for repairs, spare parts and to fix it.
Is that really a surprise? No way. It's a busniess. I know if I go to some chop shop the warrenty on my Toyota is void.
In 2003 Chretien was able to say no to Canada "officially" participating in the Iraq war. The more "deep integration" the Canadian military has with the U.S. military, the less able future Canadian governments will be able to make even passive resistance to entering imperialistic wars of the American Empire.
You're soap boxing this Frmsldr.
Our fighter jets need to communicate to other fighter jets and also people on the ground. We will always be in a situation where our forces are working along side other countries.
I watched in vain as a helicopter from another country hovered over us and wouldn't land to pick up wounded soldiers and civilians because the helicopter pilots couldn't talk directly to us on the ground. There rules were they do not land unless they have direct communication with the people on the ground. So they flew over our heads for 20 minutes while people bled out on the ground.
Being former military I know you know how important communication is. 99% of friendly fire incidents are due to lack of communication. You can say what you want about big evil uncle sam and how much we don't want to be like them but in the context of our military and it's equipment, we simply need to be able to talk to our allies in the battlefield in order to be effective.
The issue with the communications is that it is advanced technology (the bugs in the comms with the F-35 still haven't been sorted out yet) the U.S. government doesn't want other countries to acquire.
At first the U.S. was going to sell the more advanced F-22 (to Australia, Japan and I believe Saudi Arabia and the U.A.E.) until some people in Congress woke up and realized that if the U.S. sold such technologically advance aircraft - even to "allies", such technology (either wittingly or "unwittingly") stood a chance of ending up in the hands of countries that are not "friends" of the U.S.
Aside from the countries that have cancelled purchase of the F-35, Britain, Australia, Japan and other countries have reduced the number of F-35s they're going to buy due to the (rising) costs.
There are other less expensive aircraft and options Canada can buy that will better suit Canada's needs that are either American or NATO (British, French, "Euro", Swedish, etc.,) alternatives. Another example would be to upgrade the F/A-18.
To pose the issue as "Canada either has comms with other U.S./NATO/ISAF equipment and branches or it doesn't" binary option is a fallacy.
There has always been a problem with aircraft communicating with the ground or other branches of the military communicating with each other and military equipment from different nationalities communicating with each other.
With increasing technology, where the difficulty lies is in overcoming encription.
Because Russian and Chinese comms equipment (radioes) used by Afghan, Iraqi, Somali, Yemeni, Libyan rebels, insurgents, etc., is older and either lacks encryption or the encryption technology isn't as advanced, it's easier for U.S./NATO/ISAF comms to connect with their radioes than it is with other NATO/ISAF radioes(!)
Again, (with U.S./NATO/ISAF to NATO/ISAF communication) it boils down to overcoming encryption. After that, (like connecting to or monitoring the Russian or Chinese made radioes of others) it's a matter of getting on the same frequency. It's not an absolute necessity to buy the F-35 or their comms equipment to achieve this. Canada can shop around other NATO countries for aircraft with comms systems that can communicate with U.S. aircraft (and comms equipment) that are more economical and more effectively meet Canada's needs/requirements.
Why are we even considering buying any type of military hardware? Wouldn't it just be better to train the populace to protect itself in case of an invasion?
OR even better yet, just have Canada make agreements with other countries to join the working class of each country together that way we will never go to war?
Why are we even considering buying any type of military hardware? Wouldn't it just be better to train the populace to protect itself in case of an invasion?
OR even better yet, just have Canada make agreements with other countries to join the working class of each country together that way we will never go to war?
Absolutely.
War ain't no good for nobody.
Save the arms industry.
While these are all good ideas they are not very useful when armed foreign military aircraft choose to violate our airspace, or when armed foreign naval vessels choose to violate our waters.
And if we need to buy the F35 to save our end of that lucrative aerospace defense trade whatsits then I say we suck it up and buy the bare minimum number required to keep all that work whatever it may be. We could always fly the F35's once a year on Canada Day, they'd last for quite a long time that way, just look at how long our military can keep a Sea Thing in the air.
War ain't no good for nobody.
Save the arms industry.
While these are all good ideas they are not very useful when armed foreign military aircraft choose to violate our airspace, or when armed foreign naval vessels choose to violate our waters.
I doubt if our miltary will shoot at the US forces and they are the only ones that would dare to violate our space at their whim.
I doubt if our miltary will shoot at the US forces and they are the only ones that would dare to violate our space at their whim.
Dare and in fact do.
Although there is tacit acceptance by the Canadian government granting U.S. submarines, other war and commercial vessels through the Arctic North Passage, the U.S.A. provides the diplomatic "nicety" of requesting passage from the Canadian government.
Oh well we can always send them a strongly worded diplomatic note if it comes to that.
Terry Mileski on P&P just said Harper admitted that Canada does not actually have a contract yet for the F35s.
Terry Mileski on P&P just said Harper admitted that Canada does not actually have a contract yet for the F35s.
Yes, I believe it was Iggy who (months) earlier had pointed out that Canada actually doesn't have a contract.
The Canadian government did invest $165 million to allow Canadian companies to bid on the project and an "agreement in principle" or an offer to purchase the jets.
Somebody certainly needs to oversee them.
Canada’s F-35s: Engines not included
The multi-million dollar F-35 stealth fighter that the Conservatives want to purchase comes with all the accoutrements of a high-tech aircraft — everything, that is, except an engine.
The government will be required to provide engines for the 65 planes to be delivered by U.S. manufacturer Lockheed Martin, according to newly released Defence Department documents.
I had to check and make sure it wasn't April 1st all over again.
The government will be required to provide engines for the 65 planes to be delivered by U.S. manufacturer Lockheed Martin, according to newly released Defence Department documents.
This needs to be publicized as much as possible in the next two weeks before Election Day.
Absolutely because without engines we can't bomb other countries into liberation. The only person I have heard speak about Libya has been the current proconsul and he put it in the category of Canada's "positive influence" in the world. So far NO one has disagreed. So yes we should focus on not having the right equipment for our brave new political consensus that Canada has a Duty To Protect.
With that consensus in place only the type of war machines need debating. Canadians definitely don't need any party being naive enough to think that Canada would be better off outside NATO. Damn Harper for wanting more expensive jets to bomb with than the NDP. It rightly wants the working class version of the war planes we need to fulfil our role as saviours of the less developed world.
Saw this mentioned on P&P in a debate about streamlining NDHQ in Ottawa just now: Feds announce $35 billion shipbuilding strategy - the article is from Jun. 3, 2010.
Breaking news from CTV: DND is going to spend $550,000.00 to develop a Stealth Snowmobile for covert use in Canada's Arctic.
Stealth snowmobile eh? Probably just means adding a muffler. Which wouldn't be a bad thing IMHO. Snowmobiles are LOUD!
Nope - it will have a quiet electric motor as per this link because it is being developed for covert use. Snowmobiles sold in Canada and the USA already have mufflers mandated. I've been using a snowmobile every winter since I moved here in 1995.
Great idea. And when the battery runs down you just plug it into the snow.
It's actually a gas/electric hybrid. It is to operate in electric mode only when it is on specifically covert missions, or when the operator is sneaking up on someone.
excerpt:
The tender calls for the snowmobile to have a range of at least 15 kilometres when it operates in its quiet, electric mode at an average speed of 20 km/h on level snow.
The vehicle must also be able to hit a top speed of at least 75 km/h.
In its gas-power mode, the snowmobile must be able to maintain a speed of 30 km/h while towing a payload of 250 kilograms on a sled, and it must have a range of 100 kilometres.
"It also must have the ability to switch to 'silent' mode easily and quickly with minimal tools, at which point it can function solely on electrical power," the tender says.
Saw this mentioned on P&P in a debate about streamlining NDHQ in Ottawa just now: Feds announce $35 billion shipbuilding strategy - the article is from Jun. 3, 2010.
And the NDP is fully onside with the Harper drive to furnish more warships for the navy.
I didn't know that about the NDP and their support for new navy ships. Thanks, M. Spector. I thought more NDP folks would be commenting on the links I provided this week and last - wasn't that the reason for this thread?
Saw this mentioned on P&P in a debate about streamlining NDHQ in Ottawa just now: Feds announce $35 billion shipbuilding strategy - the article is from Jun. 3, 2010.
And the NDP is fully onside with the Harper drive to furnish more warships for the navy.
This is for both combat and non-combat vessels.
I guess if we're to going to have a navy it needs to be kept in shape - some of the ships in use are 40+ years old. I don't know why we need combat vessels, though - I'd like to see the navy used only for peacetime coast guard duties along the three coasts and keeping the bad guys (smugglers) out. I think Harper feels he is on a mission from God to interfere with the sovereignty of other nations.
ETA: I don't understand Harper and MacKay's determination to have the ultimate in fighting machines for our navy and air force. Think of all the other pressing needs - First Nation water supply, First Nation housing, First Nation schools - and all the other social needs (especially health care) of this huge country. I think ALL of Harper's plans wrt the military need to be scaled back at least by 30% - 50% and the NDP as the Official Opposition should be fighting to get all these other priorities funded along with scaling back Harper's proposed military aquisitions.
This is for both combat and non-combat vessels.
Oh well that's OK then. Never mind.
This is for both combat and non-combat vessels.
Oh well that's OK then. Never mind.
It still depends on what they are used for.
What do you suppose they are going to be used for? Luxury cruises for inner-city kids?
I'm going to wade into some very troubled waters and suggest international commerce.
There is the alternative - economic self-sufficiency, but not all countries (especially the smaller ones) can do this. Oops, that probably opened another Pandora's box over the morality of nation-state borders and the existence of nation-states.
Closing for length.