While I doubt Bush was smart enough to see it coming, having a war in the center of the largest oil producing region has created a tension in the world market that the oil industry continues to exploit. Canada now has huge reserves coming online with the oil sands, Harper must know that if we keep helping the US destabilize the entire Gulf region our oil will be worth much more.

Maybe Harper’s not so stupid, maybe he just lacks a conscience.

Yes steve, I think you’re paranoid enough for all of us.

Who exactly are we supposed to defending against and how will we know when we have enough military.

Depends on how you spend it doesn’t it? As far as history goes, it is written in blood of those who made it happen. History is no just pen and paper, I know that much.

To say something good about the militarization though - Friedrich the Great (a.k.a. Old Fritz) pulled Prussia out of the slums of Europe and was able to make great reforms due to his military successes. Mind you there are no people like him in politics or military anymore (i.e. devoted to the cause and the country, educated, composing music etc.)…

The reality here is that that this policy is rooted in the development of the defense sector, that one of its goals it to have that sector impact local economies, which is something that has so infected and corrupted American government over the last 61 years as to stupefy.[/quote]

I don’t think this will seriously develop this nation’s defense sector. $30 billion may sound like a lot but it is actually not. It won’t create a vast military economy to compare this to the US where they spend nearly ten times as much. Half the money is slated to be spent on people. Most of what is slated for equipment expense is to modernize existing equipment – bring it up to par. A large portion of new equipment will be purchased from overseas – not built in Canada.

The argument that the military industrial complex in the US has corrupted American politics is worth pursuing. I certainly won’t disagree and the case is documented but the context of this build-out of the military industrial complex was largely the cold war when there was a race to outspend the Russians. This is the reasoning for American power today not the inherent benefits gained by corrupt military contractors. It’s like saying the trend of aging baby boomers will lead to corruption in the pharmaceutical industry.

Even if this policy does develop local economies what is wrong with this impact? MPs beholden to their localities is not something new. The government subsidizes many local industries. Look at the auto sector in Canada. It is a mess! Is shilling out the auto sector a corruption of the public good? How do we protect the livelihood of workers in this industry? A discussion well worth having – the answer isn’t immediate though.
Economically – this would be a positive for the North. It will help develop communities in the northern territories. A large part of the policy is to make proper territorial claims in the arctic - to exploit the natural resources which are increasingly becoming accessible.

I don’t know what the answer is here truthfully – it is more of an ongoing question than an answer - but I do think rational discussion can be made to support this policy. It isn’t completely absent minded. The ship of fools isn’t sinking yet. Hold your horses.

But couldn’t an argument be made that Canada could intervene in places more with an expanded military - Darfur, Rwanda, Burma. Obiviously the way he is phrasing it here - we are looking to join the ranks of the bullies rather than be a helper nation.[/quote]

Gee, what do you want to achieve there by “intervening militarily”?? Why should Canada (or any other country) intervene militarily in Darfur other than embedded in a UN-mission? We don’t need more weapons or troops. Instead, look WHO is fighting the wars for you - Kids that dropped school or for any other reasons haven’t got a perspective in their community. To great extents they are poorly trained in technical, social and psychological needs. This is how we create our Abu Ghraibs or Kabuls (referring to the case of german soldiers playing chess and bowling with skulls and bones of afghan people killed in the conflict).
There is something completely going wrong for my opinion.[/quote]

I think where there is a large loss of human life occuring we have a responsibility to protect and intervene (diplomatically, politically, militarily, culturally, through aid, NGOs - all of it). When abuses occur on our side we have a greater responsibility to have the antagonists tried internationally through the law.

Does the kid who refuses to fight forfeit his right to play in the yard?
Does the player who doesn’t throw down his gloves forfeit his right to play hockey?

Only when the wrong people are in charge.

Harper is patronizing, and he may actually be evil.

The first being readiness. The main issues they deal with is the procurement of spare parts for equipment they already have and the maintenance of said equipment. I have many friends in the forces that have basically taken apart two pieces of machinery to make one functional one. The other being additional equipment and fuel for training exercises. Well, lets see. Training 11,000 soldiers without additional ammunition, fuel and equipment would be mighty difficult wouldnt you say?

The second being infrastructure improvements. They say that more than 50% of the current CF infrastructure including buildings, roads etc. are 50 years old? Id say its about time for some new buildings here. If we dont modernize these things, whats the point for even having a military?

The third is the modernization of CF equipment. If you read the article it says that they’re looking at replacing equipment because “over the next 20 years, six of the CF’s core equipment fleets will reach the end of their operational lives and will need to be replaced” including “destroyers, frigates, maritime patrol aircraft, fixed-wing search and rescue aircraft, fighter aircraft and land combat vehicles and systems.” I dont really see why we shouldnt be updating these things? Flying around in 50 year old fighter jets and patrolling the Arctic with our current fleet in twenty years seems pretty silly, wouldnt you say? By the way, the bulk of these funds are going to build up to eight vessels and a naval port on our soon to be newest coastline in the north.

The final point (or “pillar”) is the recruitment of additional soldiers. THIS is, in my view at least, the easiest to justify. We’re not talking about doubling the size of the forces or anything even close to it. We’re talking about adding an additional 11,000 troops to it. Of which, SIX thousand are reserves. And this is the BULK of the money being spent. If you spread this out over the planned amount of years, this growth merely grows proportionately alongside our projected population growth here in Canada.

Its not all good though. I dont like the missile defence topic being brought up again nor do I like the way the tories are trying to sell this.

Although, I do believe if you look past the dumbasses trying to sell this, the product they’re pushing is one we need whether you choose to believe it’s necessary or not.

I dont know. This definitely isnt the type of forum I should be writing this into but I just read through all these comments and couldnt believe that most of the commenters choose not to believe in the necessity of most of this legislation. Without the modernization here, I really dont see how we could have ANY viable military presence in the future.

Just my thoughts! Feel free to rip it to shreds!

Here is the perfect plan to make Olympics safe and clean up Vancouver in one blow: built a base at Whistler and recruit the homeless (make it a draft, just in case they refuse). This will save money since the city will not have to hire, dare I say it, independent contractors as security. Comparatively speaking, half of recruits at Esquimalt base in Victoria smoke pot - this is still better than russian army though (sub. pot with vodka).

We can also:
1. scare our US friends
2. have a community that is economically independent from the base - after all Whistler is all about snow. Once the snow melts (due to climate change), then the base can become the core of a vibrant community!

Doug Goodyear is the CEO of a company named DCI.

DCI was paid $348,000 to lobby on behalf of the military junta that currently runs Burma. You know, they’re the guys who gunned down protesters and blocked international aid from reaching Burma after the cyclone.

The question will always be, when do we use military force? Or do we sit bye and do nothing. The US (and the Soviet Union ) saved Europe and Asia 60 years ago but no more. We have heard the angry voices. We are coming home. We are going to let someone else be the “Cop”.

There is no “humanitarian crises” in Burma. What there is, is murder. And everyone is sticking close to home. Britain? Germany? Spain? Ha! Russia? The Rich Arab World? About a million and a half people will begin dying very soon from lack of water and disease; and if the US Marines assault over the beach France will be in an uproar…..and Spain…….

And China waits………..

But, until Canadian government grows a spine, its missions will follow the path of Afghanistan. All that military money would be best spent on the humanitarian aid to starving populations, as well as on reestablishment of agricultural programs in Africa, aid that has been cut shorter and shorter every year by Mr. Harper. What is the primary cause of civil unrest in ANY country? Hunger and unemployment.

p.s. If only the Swiss would talk…

Needless to say I was pretty damned surprised. I had my camera but it was raining AND I was trying to make the 1PM sailing. (I made it)

Maybe somebody in Victoria can cruise down 17 and get the shots.