NDP and the Military

Aristotleded24 wrote:

Tommy raised a pertinent point about the problems we've had with foreign boats over-fishing in Canadian waters. So if we have no military capability, how do we stop that from happening? We also know that the Arctic is melting, and that the major world powers have their eyes on the profits that would arise from resources that would become available. So without the military, how do we prevent said powers from just taking what they want and running roughshod over us?

This is one of the greatest lies ever. Our navy boats are too slow to catch this supposed foreign boats fishing in Canadian waters. In fact, if this is what you want Canada to do, then this last $35 billion has been a complete waste of money. Get ready to spend another XX billion more, meanwhile Aboriginal and Northern Affairs Canada is sending communities buckets because they have no toilets or sanitation facilities.

Finally, this claim of foreign boats was at best a half-truth. It was about foreign boats fishing in waters that Canada claims- way beyond Canadian territorial waters- that other countries don't recognise. The dispute was not resolved by snail-like navy ships bumping along on the surf, but by the creation of a joint management regime: NAFO. Try again.

The F35's were tendered in 2001 and Boeing lost. Such is history.

As for why Canada has fighter planes, well...they were originally to fight the Russians, but in practice used to "gain us" participation in the US's NORAD. In theory if Canada doesn't have them, the US will refuse to defend us in the event of an air attack...and from whom? Well I guess it still the Russians or maybe a Chinese air force light years behind the US and its allies (e.g. Taiwan, Korea). Yes, this justifies the expenditure of billions of dollars every year while native children grow up in poverty in this country, people die in our streets, and so forth.

Also, the military doing "environmental surveillance"...give me a break! This is managed by the civilian organisations of the federal government. They even have their own assets to do it (and none of them costs billions). They include organisations like the Coast Guard, Transport, Environment Canada, Department of Fisheries and Oceans, Aboriginal and Northern Affairs Canada. The military only goes to gawk and stare when things like Katrina happen and even then...it's a civilian mission, you think the generals want to do this?

Get this through your heads, if it doesn't involve killing people and destroying things, the Generals are not interested. All of these civilian missions don't give them a hard on. Just ask Joint Chief Naty, he had a great time leading US troops during the War in Iraq, no joke. Also, the reason we are STILL in Afghanistan is that the military brass WANTS us to be there. They WANTED us to go to Iraq. They will want us to go on the US's next imperial escapade.

Howard wrote:

Finally, this claim of foreign boats was at best a half-truth. It was about foreign boats fishing in waters that Canada claims- way beyond Canadian territorial waters- that other countries don't recognise. The dispute was not resolved by snail-like navy ships bumping along on the surf, but by the creation of a joint management regime: NAFO. Try again.

You have that substantiually wrong.

The EU does not dispute, and already at least admistratively recognised the claim to jurisdiction [not territrial claim] with the predecesor agreements to NAFO, when the Spanish ships were arrested and brought to Canadian posts

The improvement of NAFO was the ultimate outcome, but it is delusional if you think the seizure of ships with the credible expectation of more to follow, did not set the conditions for NAFO.

It doesn't matter, Boom Boom. If the foreigners weren't overfishing we'd be doing it ourselves. And we have done.

Are there even any fish left to protect? Enough to justify spending $21 billion a year?

Boom Boom wrote:

I remember a news clip of Brian Tobin back in the day defending the wee turbot. I think Spain was the culprit then. I don't know which agency nabbed that Spanish boat or whether it was indeed in Canadian waters or not. Anyone recall this episode in better detail?

The Coast Guard, DFO and Navy intercepted the Spanish trawler and boarded it on the high seas.  The Captain of the Coast Guard ship, who I had the privilege of meeting, told me that the seas were quite rough and getting up the ladder onto the Spanish boat was the thing that worried him the most.  The Spanish were not about to shoot at a Canadian Coast Guard or DFO boat especially with the Navy also in hot pursuit. This precis fits with my recollection of the story I was told.

Quote:

The DFO was then directed by minister Tobin and the federal cabinet to demonstrate Canadian resolve on the issue by "making an example" of a European Union fishing vessel. On March 9, an offshore patrol aircraft detected the Spanish stern trawler Estai in international waters outside Canada's 200 nautical mile (370 km) EEZ. Several armed DFO fisheries patrol vessels, along with Canadian Coast Guard and Canadian Navy support, intercepted and pursued the Estai, which cut its weighted trawl net and fled after an initial boarding attempt, resulting in a chase which stretched over several hours and ended only after the Canadian Fisheries Patrol vessel Cape Roger fired a .50 calibre (12.7 mm) machine gun across the bow of the Estai. The Canadian Coast Guard Ship CCGS Sir Wilfred Grenfell used high-pressure fire-fighting water cannon to deter other Spanish fishing vessels from disrupting the operation. Finally, armed DFO and RCMP officers boarded the vessel in international waters on the Grand Banks.

Thank you for that, NS. Do you recall the song "The Ballad of Brian Tobin"?

M. Spector wrote:

It doesn't matter, Boom Boom. If the foreigners weren't overfishing we'd be doing it ourselves. And we have done.

Are there even any fish left to protect? Enough to justify spending $21 billion a year?

The good people of Newfoundland have a long tradition of fishing or kiling species into commercial collapse and near extinction.  In the 50's it was the pilot whales.  Before that was an almost unbroken history of over harvesting some marine resource. The cod were the last large scale fishery left.

Quote:

Figures for both species of pilot whales are unknown, and even though they are depleted in some areas, pilot whales are not considered to be endangered. There are likely to be almost a million long-finned pilot whales and at least 200,000 short-finned pilot whales worldwide. Humans have taken advantage of the social nature of pilot whales. "Drive fisheries," where groups are herded to the beach for slaughter, have taken place on Cape Cod, Newfoundland, the Faroe, Shetland, and Orkney Islands, Iceland, and Norway. The whales have been killed for meat, bone, fertilizer, and oil. In some places, such as the Faroe Islands, the kill continues today despite an obvious decrease in whale numbers. One drive fishery in Newfoundland killed over 50,000 whales between 1951 and 1961, rapidly decreasing the number of pilot whales in Newfoundland waters. Other kills have not had such a drastic effect. Pilot whales are also being used by man as exhibition animals. They are displayed in many aquariums and zoos.

http://www.acsonline.org/factpack/PilotWhale.htm

Northern Shoveler wrote:

M. Spector wrote:

It doesn't matter, Boom Boom. If the foreigners weren't overfishing we'd be doing it ourselves. And we have done.

Are there even any fish left to protect? Enough to justify spending $21 billion a year?

The good people of Newfoundland have a long tradition of fishing or kiling species into commercial collapse and near extinction.  In the 50's it was the pilot whales.  Before that was an almost unbroken history of over harvesting some marine resource. The cod were the last large scale fishery left.

Quote:

Figures for both species of pilot whales are unknown, and even though they are depleted in some areas, pilot whales are not considered to be endangered. There are likely to be almost a million long-finned pilot whales and at least 200,000 short-finned pilot whales worldwide. Humans have taken advantage of the social nature of pilot whales. "Drive fisheries," where groups are herded to the beach for slaughter, have taken place on Cape Cod, Newfoundland, the Faroe, Shetland, and Orkney Islands, Iceland, and Norway. The whales have been killed for meat, bone, fertilizer, and oil. In some places, such as the Faroe Islands, the kill continues today despite an obvious decrease in whale numbers. One drive fishery in Newfoundland killed over 50,000 whales between 1951 and 1961, rapidly decreasing the number of pilot whales in Newfoundland waters. Other kills have not had such a drastic effect. Pilot whales are also being used by man as exhibition animals. They are displayed in many aquariums and zoos.

http://www.acsonline.org/factpack/PilotWhale.htm

Don't worry. There is still a valuable capelin and lobster fishery to protect. Now food, previously fertilizer.

Northern Shoveler wrote:

The good people of Newfoundland have a long tradition of fishing or kiling species into commercial collapse and near extinction.  In the 50's it was the pilot whales.  Before that was an almost unbroken history of over harvesting some marine resource. The cod were the last large scale fishery left.

Insofar as the northern cod fishery in Newfoundland was arguably the largest fishery of its kind in the world and had been for several centuries, the idea that it was the last large-scale fishery is a bit difficult to parse in any meaningful way. There are, in fact, large scale fisheries for any number of species in the waters around Newfoundland, by any meaningful standard.

Mismanagement of the resource had a lot to do with the scale and speed of the fishery`s collapse, but a very large amount of independent research has gone into what happened to the northern cod and it is clear that a number of things were going on that contributed to what happened to varying degrees. Based on historical analysis of fishing records from around the north Atlantic, it has become clear that this sort of thing has happened repeatedly throughout history and is apparently related to the expansion and contraction of cold water layers at the northern extremes of the cod`s range.

The inshore fishermen of Newfoundland, who have fished the cod for the better part of 500 years, were calling for controls on the subisidized offshore groundfish fleet for years before the collapse. They were ignored. The offshore fleet included both international vessels, nominally under the control of NAFO, and a very modern, highly efficient and over-capitalized domestic fleet that had been constructed when Canada imposed a 200 mile economic exclusion zone and expelled the international fleet that had previously fished outside the old 12 mile limit.

All of which has exactly nothing to do with the use of the military to police the fishery, for which there are many obvious examples in many countries, including Canada. This account of the so-called Turbot War and its context is reasonably accurate.

Peter3 wrote:

 The inshore fishermen of Newfoundland, who have fished the cod for the better part of 500 years, were calling for controls on the subisidized offshore groundfish fleet for years before the collapse. They were ignored.

Since I'm in a song mood here is a song written by my favourite folkie about the collapse of the inshore fishery. The words were written in the seventies.  I seem to remember that the government response to that collapse was to consolidate the licensees into fewer big boats designed for factory fishing not the traditional small boat fishery.  Anyways here Stan.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6E2DFa18kYI

Northern Shoveler wrote:

Boom Boom wrote:

I remember a news clip of Brian Tobin back in the day defending the wee turbot. I think Spain was the culprit then. I don't know which agency nabbed that Spanish boat or whether it was indeed in Canadian waters or not. Anyone recall this episode in better detail?

The Coast Guard, DFO and Navy intercepted the Spanish trawler and boarded it on the high seas.  The Captain of the Coast Guard ship, who I had the privilege of meeting, told me that the seas were quite rough and getting up the ladder onto the Spanish boat was the thing that worried him the most.  The Spanish were not about to shoot at a Canadian Coast Guard or DFO boat especially with the Navy also in hot pursuit. This precis fits with my recollection of the story I was told.

Quote:

The DFO was then directed by minister Tobin and the federal cabinet to demonstrate Canadian resolve on the issue by "making an example" of a European Union fishing vessel. On March 9, an offshore patrol aircraft detected the Spanish stern trawler Estai in international waters outside Canada's 200 nautical mile (370 km) EEZ. Several armed DFO fisheries patrol vessels, along with Canadian Coast Guard and Canadian Navy support, intercepted and pursued the Estai, which cut its weighted trawl net and fled after an initial boarding attempt, resulting in a chase which stretched over several hours and ended only after the Canadian Fisheries Patrol vessel Cape Roger fired a .50 calibre (12.7 mm) machine gun across the bow of the Estai. The Canadian Coast Guard Ship CCGS Sir Wilfred Grenfell used high-pressure fire-fighting water cannon to deter other Spanish fishing vessels from disrupting the operation. Finally, armed DFO and RCMP officers boarded the vessel in international waters on the Grand Banks.

 

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

Boom Boom wrote:

Perhaps off-topic. Has anyone else seen the ads that the Department of Veteran's Affairs is spamming through the television airwaves? The title of these ads are: Veterans - The Pride of Our Country.

Apparently the Conservatives believe that only war veterans are the pride of our country - veterans of industry, trade and commerce and other fields of human endeavour are unworthly of acclaim.

The Conservatives...hard at work prudently managing your tax dollars.

Money for vacuous ads praising veterans, no money for benefits.

Money for ads, no money for jobs at Environment Canada.

Fidel wrote:

I like it that while the NDP realizes it can do nothing about the open fascism emanating from the western world today...

As a consolation prize for the losing participants, they did something on its behalf instead.

Slumberjack wrote:

Fidel wrote:

I like it that while the NDP realizes it can do nothing about the open fascism emanating from the western world today...

As a consolation prize for the losing participants, they did something on its behalf instead.

Why CAN'T they do anything about it?  And if not them, then who? 

It's not as if tiny social increments at home make up for fascism abroad.  Accept that it is, and you've embraced the Roman Empire's "bread and circuses" strategy.

Ken Burch wrote:

Slumberjack wrote:

Fidel wrote:

I like it that while the NDP realizes it can do nothing about the open fascism emanating from the western world today...

As a consolation prize for the losing participants, they did something on its behalf instead.

Why CAN'T they do anything about it?  And if not them, then who? 

It's not as if tiny social increments at home make up for fascism abroad.  Accept that it is, and you've embraced the Roman Empire's "bread and circuses" strategy.

The Gracchi brothers were wildly popular among the people for opposing Roman creditors, and they were pushed over a cliff edge for their efforts. The Western part of the empire was plunged into a social and economic dark age after Roman creditors tookover. Something similar began happening in Europe and here in the far west beginning in the latter half of the 1970s. The coup was completed by the 1990s. No amount of austerity, though, will make good the creditors' claims to debts owed them. The NATO gang members are resorting to war and aggression, empire expansion, fascism etc.

I remember Jack Layton talking about the Bank of Canada and how it could be put to better use. Jack did his doctoral thesis on international capital flows. I think Jack would have done the Gracchi brothers proud. Mulcair has been a quick study in economics and finance, they say. And Topp is suggesting raising taxes on the oligarchs. And Flaherty barks his vicious little bark on cue like the good poodlecrat that he is. Triple-U senators waiting in the shadows to do their dirty work if necessary.

Matthew Behrens wrote:

The NDP endorsed a 2002 Parliamentary Committee's call for increasing military spending a full 50 per cent (which would mean $28 billion per year by the end of 2010, and we're almost there). That was the same year NDP MPs began joining their colleagues in a unique indoctrination program called the Canadian Forces Parliamentary Program, which "embeds" MPs in war training exercises where, according to a report in Canadian Parliamentary Review, they "learn how the equipment works, they train with the troops, and they deploy with their units on operations. Parliamentarians are integrated into the unit by wearing the same uniform, living on bases, eating in messes, using CF facilities and equipment."

In May 2005, the NDP supported the Paul Martin 2005 Liberal budget. Hailed as Canada's "First NDP budget," it sported the largest military spending increase in 20 years, making Canada's war budget higher than at any time since the end of World War II.

When the infamous NDP-Liberal-Bloc coalition came together in December 2008, the issue of withdrawal from Afghanistan was suddenly "off the table." And as NATO generals recently called for increased bombing of Libya despite rising civilian casualties, there was silence from the campaign trail.

Shortly after my concerns were posted on Jack Layton's Facebook page, I received a phone call from the NDP's Ottawa-based "war room," a thoroughly insulting moniker to anyone who has actually experienced the horror of war as civilian or soldier (why not a "torture room" or a "pillage room" to make further light of those subjects?). A campaign worker, to his credit, wanted to dialogue, but noted that if Jack Layton were to discuss military cuts, he would be hurt in mainstream media coverage and by the perceptions of "average Canadians."

While this line did not surprise me -- it is used by every political party facing the choice of taking a principled stand or following backroom advisers wholly insulated from the electorate -- it certainly is not in sync with this spring's Leger Marketing report that revealed almost 60 per cent of those polled declared "Canada should take a peace dividend and cut back on military spending to focus on other more pressing social issues at home." Despite a decade of endless military propaganda, "Red Friday" support the troops rallies, yellow ribbons, and a seriously weak Canadian peace movement, such numbers are remarkable.

[url=http://rabble.ca/news/2011/04/canadas-massive-military-budget-table-fede...

NDP policy doesn't appear to correspond with where the people are on any given issue related to NATO imperialism.  The more obvious strategy seems to involve the avoidance of making waves against those who are likely to become dismayed by non-scripted outbursts, and who are better positioned to immediately retaliate through the corporate information bureaus.

You'd have thought the Greens would try to play that role, but The Eventually Reverend Ms. May hasn't really seemed interested in doing that, or trying in any other sense to make her party in to a party of activism and change.

Boom Boom wrote:

What are the ramifications of switching from a war to a peace economy?

I can think of three big ones right off the top:

1. Big reduction in fossil fuel consumption and greenhouse gas emissions

2. Huge sums of money freed up for worthwhile purposes

3. Reduction in Canada's priority as a terrorist target

Unionist wrote:

The NDP can't oppose the warships. They would be called "job-killing extremists", and they'd be tarred and feathered and driven out of town by pitchfork-wielding voters. That's how the geniuses in the NDP war room see it.

Harper sets the agenda, "opposition" parties meekly critique some irrelevant details. That's been the pattern since 2006, minority or majority, makes no difference. The only opposition right now to Harper and the interests that he serves is in the streets.

 

I would think unionized workers would be leading that pitchfork parade around shipyards, struggling steel plants and such.
Harper sets the agenda because he understands that, still gets an Oshawa MP elected by a reduced and retired work force of burnt out assembly line workers that believes the "economist" can keep them working and their pensions performing. And "the left" have only been able to alienate them with policy suggestions that they are certain would put them out of a job.

First though, suggest how their pensions are to be maintained - those that they are living on or aspiring to after a third-of-a-sweaty century.

The single candidate for leadership of the party that could put Steve and Wee Jimmy in their place in economic debate is counted too forceful in debate (and concern for bureaucratic efficiency and linguistic capabilities) by party centre. And he couldn't be your man without street cred.

Really like to see how the critics would get around the institutional barriers that they love to list - like a media controlled by the enemy, and a mainstreet unable to formulate their concerns -without connecting the dots.

Harper's also spending a Billion dollars to upgrade 550 LAV III light armoured vehicles "so they can better withstand deadly roadside bombs and mines". This is his idea of "job creation".

And of course we can't let that $1 Billion go to waste, so we'll have to find another country to invade real soon.

But don't expect the official opizishin to complain about this colossal waste of public funds; it's right there in their platform that they intend to "give the men and women of the Canadian Forces, who put their lives on the line every day, the best equipment to do the job with".

Funny, that's almost exactly [url=http://www.winnipegfreepress.com/canada/breakingnews/ottawa-to-spend-1b-... Rona Ambrose said[/url] when announcing this gigantic boondoggle: that it would "make sure our men and women in uniform are safer on the battlefield." 

My side tracking to nuclear issues was in response to the idea of isolationism, of "going it alone".  The harsh reality is that Canada is the world's second largest nation with a population of only about 35 million.  For cris' sakes, Howard Hampton's old ridding in north western Ontario is bigger than Germany.  Add to that resources that many nations are slavering over and a gargantuan coast line, going it alone would require a nation almost built on militarism, or dependance on high tech, high power ordinance like nuclear weapons, faster than the speed of sound torpedoes and all the latest air force gadgets.  It might even mean compulsary military service.

As I said, that's a non starter with the NDP, as it is with me. 

That leaves diplomacy to ensure our security.  Alliances.  And as we see with Nato, that is problematic.  The reality is through alliances that you do get dragged into your neighbour's arguments.  The way to minimize that problem is to be selective on who your alliance members are, and to have good influence in that alliance.

Whether we were for or against what I call "Operation Elphy Bey" (from whence you may discern my opinion)  in Afghanistan, it *should* have spurred a debate on our alliances, pricipally NATO, and what we gain and lose through it. 

Being against Afghanistan, the inexcapable fact was our troops ended up there.  And many died because of the perfidy of our alliance members, principally Germany and to some extent France. 

Once again, Canada "punched above it's wieght" militarily-- for the sake of European machinations.

We have to come to grips with the NATO alliance, and we have to come to grips with the real world. 

You can't beat them at the negotiation table if you can't beat them in the alley.  To borrow a phrase from Conn Smythe.

And if we decide to go back to an emphasis on Peace Keeping, recognize that many Canadian soldiers in this most honourable endeavor died in this service.  They still need excellent equipment, and more importantly, more realistic mandates from the United Nations, and a solid commitment from the Canadian government which needs to give shadow support through diplomacy. 

And again, even in peace keeping, the perfidy of our partners was a main mission problem all the time.

The reality exposed above, about Layton not criticizing the upgrades of LAV's because of the mainstream zietgiest is a real thing that any NDP politician has to deal with.

Instead of ripping them a new one, why don't you come up with an idea that changes that mainstream zietgiest so that new ideas can be expressed? 

The way to attack military spending isn't with the false dichotomy of "we could be spending this money on something else"-- a P.R. campaign that has never worked-- but on attacking the inevitable waste and corruption such spending always engenders.

That's because the bulk of American Military spending has more to do with pork barrel politics than it does real security concerns. 

In other words, corruption.

Yep, aircraft carriers and nukes are useless against right wing fundamentalist terror organizations created by the CIA and MI6, ISI, Saudi princes etc during the cold war. The sword gang are experts when it comes to exploiting their own security holes. It's almost as if Emanuel Goldstein and expendable and rabidly anticommunist jihadi assets have friends working with them on the inside.

I would think in any case that high tech surveilance should be item number one.  Satelites, underwater listening devices, etc.  That way you don't need a lot of personed, old style "garassons" on our too big boarders.   Because of our size, equipment that can cover a lot of ground or water is obvious for military and search and rescue.  Obviously, jets and conventionally armed missles would do the job in terms of interception and detterence. 

But more important is a foreign policy that makes this the second line of deffence.  This is cheaper-- but trickier.

If we go back in history, way back, we might remember how Great Britain abandoned Canada over the Alaska Boundry dispute, this fresh after Canada had done it's colonial duty fighting, with some distinction,  for Britain against the Boers.

Foriegn policy isn't a matter of "what have you done for us lately", obviously, it's about "what can you do to/for us now?"  I am of course not privy to much foriegn policy behind closed doors, but it seems to me Canada relies too much on the good will from past participations at our allies behest as counting for something, when it counts for begger all.

I do think Canada has levers of influence on other nations, but from this admittedly restricted view, I never see them applied.