55 Replies to “Make Canada Great Again”

  3. Freeland: “And besides, we can use that military build up against our own people, when the time comes! Win-win!”
    Ok, I may have made that up. But I am sure that such a thing often crosses the Liberal mind.

  5. So, Canada is going to spend money on a bill allowing the feds to take our children away if we don’t support our 7 year old kids belief that they are of the opposite sex, a bill making it a crime not to use the PC gender-fluid pronouns, and now, to help NATO make more Sharia pestholes like Libya and Kosovo.

  6. Unless the Children’s Crusade in Ottawa is actually talking about a revitalized Canadian Armed Forces of (at a very minimum) 100,000 regular and 50,000 reserve personnel with all the associated modern equipment and weaponry, it’s simply posturing.
    Oh, and our foreign minister is quite simply preposterous.

  7. That NAFTA threat seems to have gotten MiniT’s attention (or somebody’s anyway).
    Re ‘YeahWell’s’ comment above re the Fed’s bringing in the rugrat seizure bill, I thought it was the Province of Ontario that was bringing it forward(?)…
    Birds of a feather I know, but still.

  8. What did Trump say to the Europeans that got them into such a tizz? “Why should the US spend money defending you when you don’t even defend your own borders”.

  9. Lloyd Axworthy commented that Freeland’s speech to parliament re the liberals foreign policy was “brilliant”… I couldn’t stand to listen to him drooling over how wonderful the liberals are, how transparent and open.

  10. Well I heard it on the radio just this afternoon – from our good friends the CBC –
    Canada is going to spend $13.9 Billion more on our Military!!!
    – over the next 10 years. Ahh. Might’ve expected it; heavily-weighted on “two terms from now” – but they really mean it, honest…
    Anybody else old enough to remember Lyin’ Brian’s ten nuclear subs?

  11. $14 billion over 10 years is $1.4 billion a year extra. That is one 7% annual increase over 10 years or .7% per annum. Inflation is 1.6% per annum. So defence spending is increasing at half the rate of inflation. Is Trudeau for real?

  12. Translation: Actual real spending on the military will decline by 1.6% – 0.7% = 0.9% per annum.
    It’s True_DOPE-ia’s new math!
    Cheers
    Hans Rupprecht, Commander in Chief
    1st Saint Nicolaas Army
    Army Group ‘True North’

  13. Unless we are doubling our annual defence budget (as a very minimum), we are not serious here. I don’t think there is a single person in Ottawa who appreciates what is involved at the strategic level when it comes to pushing one’s military weight around on the global stage.*
    The Liberals are doing what all Canadian political parties do when it comes to defence: smoke-and-mirrors with an electorate that is essentially clueless on defence matters and doesn’t want to pay the real cost of defending ourselves. Ooh… $14 billion over 10 years! And with that we’re going to show military leadership over the US – which has annual defence budget of over $600 billion?
    * I take that back. Of course there are folks in Ottawa who know what is involved.
    Too bad they’re all senior defence attachés from countries like the US, China and Russia though.

  14. I think you have a bit of a math prolem there, Scar, you divided by 10 twice. Also, inflation is greater than any offically imagined 1.6%

  16. Well had we bought them when they were in service, when the Brits first offered them to us, they would have been fine, but instead we dithered for a decade.

  17. It’s all librano bullshit. Trump’s got ’em running. They have miscalculated just about everything that has happened in the US starting with the fool bongo commenting on their election and suggesting he would prefer HRC to Trump.
    He pulled the jets out suggesting Canada could play a it’s traditional peacekeeping roll (not talking like that now is he). Bongo then rolled out the old canard of “Canada punching above it’s weight” when called upon.
    The boys in the US didn’t buy what bongo was selling and now it’s crunch time. NAFTA and NATO are staring down Canada’s throat.
    This move is an attempt to appease Trump. The librano ‘commitment’ to military spending takes place over years and doesn’t even kick in until, SURPRISE after the next election. Trump can probably read a balance sheet and despite the bombast from the likes of the mendacious Freeland/Sajjan tag team the only ones fooled are the libranos themselves.
    Today in another display of brilliance the jackass was – hanging out with Obama. Maybe somebody should tell him zero isn’t the president anymore.
    Oh, and another thing. Think Axworthy’s comment was serendipitous? Think again. The libranos still believe he has some name recognition and credibility so they rolled him out to bolster their deceit.

  19. By the way, in order to match US defence expenditure based on a percentage of GDP, Canada would have to have an annual defence budget of just over $51 billion.
    Ain’t gonna happen.

  20. And the new glorious leader of conservative party whips the MPs to support the motion confirming Canada’s commitment to Paris agreements…. no comments necessary.

  21. we are SO fvcked. Who was tha asshole in here who didn’t like Bernier, he wanted some tried and true. It’s not our politicians that are the biggest problem, it’s the electorate

  22. Absolutely agree on the rate of inflation, it is an utterly corrupted statistic designed to mislead the people as the politicians rob them through inflation.

  23. You can NOT be serious!
    F**k them, they aren’t the ” lesser evil “.

  24. Watching MSM coverage of this…
    I love how $60 Billion over 20 years is a massive investment but half that in a one year defecit is no biggie. Of course, nobody pointed out that glaring factoid.

  25. Scheer is simply assuring another defeat come the next election… I won’t be voting for that trans national communist bullshit and neither will anyone I know… Scheer didn’t have a chance anyhow IMO, not with the Medias imbecilic actor still around, but with this move he’s assured defeat, eff em all!

  26. Data on military spending as a % of GDP…
    http://data.worldbank.org/indicator/MS.MIL.XPND.GD.ZS
    NATO’s guideline is about 2% of GDP should be spent on the military.
    Canada is currently spending about 1%
    If my math is correct, Canada should double its spending on the military from the current budget, (from about 15 billion, raised to about 30 billion) and continue spending at that rate, adjusted for inflation and possible adjustments in the GDP.
    I doubt the Liberal braintrust meant that. However it’s obvious that Canada grossly under contributes to NATO, the same as the rest of them, except for the USA.
    It wouldn’t surprise me if at the next NATO annual meeting, the representative from the USA mentioned that they’re serving notice they’ve lost faith in NATO’s ability to contribute as promised, and will begin scaling back their contributions to European security.
    and I wouldn’t blame them one bit.

  27. I was surprised by this development …. who is left to vote federally? I guess that leaves a Western Canada Separatist Party … though that would be a last resort … or Independent.

  29. JJM – Canada wasn’t even paying the correct percentage to GDP to NATO. And now he is promising WHAT!!They think they have big guns…Lie brals out in 2019!!

  30. Yes, yes, it’s important to be caught up in foreign entanglements who tell us how our money should be spent. You know, like the Paris Climate agreement…
    Foreign entanglements have been such a great boon to us in lives and encroaching ideologies. It’s really worked well…not so much for us…nato doesn’t do much for these stealth invasions.

  32. Also I understand Trudeau and Obama have hugged. IOW platitudes & promises. Look how Trump’s prodding has failed; if only he hadn’t used Twitter.
    It all sounds good as long as:
    – CF35 chosen (why buy a horse when you can own a car?) NORAD/NATO requires this aircraft, not the Super Hornet or other obsolete fighters.
    – Fixed Wing SAR aircraft delivered soon, despite loser’s lawsuit.
    – Speaking of lawsuits, get on with the AOR/C&C tankers. You might want to put that ahead of replacing the frigates.
    – Find a way to re-buy the AW101 Merlin given the Cyclone’s tardiness, a shadow of the Merlin anyway; at least – get choppers delivered.
    – Yes, proceed with research & development of sixth generation remote/drone fighters.
    They do that and increase the size of the Forces, especially the Reserves as a pool of trained, combat ready operators, and I will say well done.
    So go ahead. Will good intentions lead to better results than past governments, or will they ease into the Chretien pork barrel mode?

  33. Math isn’t my specialty, but this time I agree with your equations :)…..and just think what Quebec and Bombardier can squeeze out of it .

  34. My faith in the Feds doing the right thing by the military is near zero, I was only trying to point out how far off the mark is this plan to spend 60 billion over 20 years, when 20 years x 15 billion of shortfall (below the 2% GDP requirement) = 300 billion, + the inflation rate over the next 2 decades.
    Note this simply brings the Canadians up to the expected rate of expenditure, not above.
    The feds are all idiots. That’s actually the best I can come up with atm.

  35. Yeah Canada ain’t spending what they don’t have. Our biggest trading partner is trying to hoop us economically. Forget that Canada was in WWII 3 years before the U.S. was.(did I mention that WWII was the last War the U.S. WON with all of it’s profligate defence spending?)
    Anyhow, Zoolander ain’t spending enough on defence to satisfy Donald “Tariff” Trump. I guess if Trump quits NATO Zoolander’s only move is to quit NORAD.

  36. I’ve said it before and I’ll say it again, the only reason NATO exists is because the U.S.A. punked out of WWII without finishing the job and putting paid to the Russians.
    Every other major war since has happen because the U.S. punked out in 1945.
    In what twisted universe do they have the right to call the shots now?

  37. I hope President Trump presents each NATO Country with a bill for the difference between 2% GDP and what they actually spent. Tell them to pay it to the US and the other four countries that are paying their fair share, or the US will withdraw from NATO and form a new defense organization called the Mafia Protection Program. “Nice Country you have here, shame if something happens to it..”
    https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=3XGAmPRxV48

  38. the liberals said that PM Harper would have the military in the streets.

  40. I predict that our defence budget will increase at the same rate as Juthtinth voters IQ will increase.

  41. I love how the Canadian media talks about 3,500 “more troops”, bringing the regular force to 71,500. I wonder how many people think this sort of nonsense through?
    The term “regular force” doesn’t mean “the army”; it means the entire regular military establishment of our country. So, in other words, currently the navy, army and air force counted together amount to 67,500 “troops”. But neither navy nor air force personnel are “troops” in any sense of that word.* The Canadian Army boils down to just over 20,000 “troops”. If you strip away the various headquarters, training establishments and administrative components, you are then left with perhaps 12,000 or so “troops” in three seriously understrength brigades.
    I wonder how many of the “3,500 more troops” will actually ever end up filling out any of the anemic two-rifle-company battalions in those brigades (and here I’m ignoring the shortfalls in the other combat, combat support and combat service support arms)? With 600 more special forces types already earmarked, that leaves maybe 2,900 more “troops” for the navy, army and air force. The greater percentage would likely be shared by the navy and army. And so I doubt much more than a thousand or so “troops” will eventually find their way into the army.
    * I mean no slur against either the RCN or the RCAF here. It’s just that neither of these two field “troops”; they man and support ships and aircraft respectively.

  42. “It’s just that neither of these two field “troops”; they man and support ships and aircraft respectively.”
    That isn’t entirely true. Regardless of the colour of uniform, if the member is in a common-to-all trade, they can serve with whomever. On my tour we had Airforce Met Techs outside the wire with us(met is rather important in the Artillery), and Navy Ammo Techs were doing IED disposal/site exploitation.

  43. In the – not twisted – universe we live in, where the US has guaranteed the security of the West the last 72 years. Btw, if the US had gone to war with the Soviets, it would have been very short – the US had sole possession of the bomb until 1949, a period which would have allowed them the comprehensive destruction of Soviet life. The US did not ” punk out “, or shirk, as you suggest – there is no question the Yalta agreement should never have been signed, but the US was committed to it by Roosevelt, and it had to be given a chance to work – which the Soviets used to develop their own atomic bomb.
    And, you miss a crucial point on the reason NATO was formed – to keep Germany from starting another World War. Only the US could perform these functions.

  44. Yep. An ice breaking nuclear aircraft carrier (probably at least 2), should be considered necessary for Canada. Once you have an ice breaking aircraft carrier, of course you need support ships and nuclear subs that can operate in the arctic 24/7/365. The Polar 8 will never be built, but should have been already, and improved upon by now.
    Maybe Canada needs to build an ice breaking battleship? A battleship would already basically be big and heavy enough. Canada should have long ago built something that matched the Yamal class in ability, and out performed it in utility. If you need to project military power all the way from Baffin island to Nunavit, you need something more than kayaks and dog sleds.

  45. “where the US has guaranteed the security of the West the last 72 years.”
    Guaranteed it against whom? The enemy that they decided to MANAGE instead of defeat?!
    The U.S. guaranteed that we had to live in fear those 72 years and spend $Billions buying American arms.
    I’d rather they had gotten rid of the threat 72 years ago than expect my gratitude and more of my money. I could have been easily done.

  46. Who is ” they “? You find a conspiracy where no evidence exists. And, since when are Americans, or anyone, obligated to do something for you? Usually, morality involves one’s obligations to others, not vice versa.

  47. “Who is ” they “? They, the American government at the end of WWII. Context of the discussion, ring a bell?
    All of the Commonwealth was ready to fight the Russians. Churchill, the French, many American generals too.
    But the American government decided to manage the Russia threat. That’s how the Korean War was lost.
    And every war since too was managed instead of won.
    And where exactly in my writing did you find me alluding to a conspiracy?
    “And, since when are Americans, or anyone, obligated to do something for you?”
    Hey I’m fine with Canada quitting NATO and NORAD. Feck the U.S.A. I’ve been saying so on this blog for years.
    I’ll bet the Americans would love it if Canada was not part of any defence treaty with them. I know I’d be ecstatic.

  48. Britain was ready for more war in 1945? News to me. And they did not fight in Korea.

  50. the nature of warfare . . . . so dangerous for the top brass and the holders of the purse strings to be behind the times.
    I haven’t delved into the future of warfare enough to add more comment.
    otoh, ask me about any past conflagrations including the American civil war. lots of commonalities there . . . .
    George S Patton is my fav commander form the past.
    I just printed and framed a portrait of George Beurling.

Proudly powered by WordPress & Skyrocket Themes

MENU

Navigation