The End of the Canadian Military?

[Keebler Elf]

I'm so sick of hearing how the non-armoured nature of the jeep contributed to the deaths of those two Canadian soldiers. That is the biggest load of crap that is continually perpetuated by people whose interest is for the Canadian gov't to spend more on the military. Officers and soldiers IN THE UNITS over in Afghanistan said that nothing short of a tank (and possibly not even that) would have saved their lives. So stop BS'ing people with that crap. Canadian peacekeepers have a reputation of excellence b/c they INTERACT with the locals and don't act in a heavy-handed (re: American) manner; driving around Afghanistan in a tank doesn't help peacekeeping efforts.

If you think Canadians aren't doing their part, good for you - that's your American opinion. Our boys put their lives on the line everyday. I'm glad we didn't get involved in the debacle that is Operation Iraqi Screwup and I think the USA has been made to look like the belligerant, arrogant, do-as-they-please, nation that it is from time to time. Bush told the world to screw off - America would do as it pleases. Now he's crying for help to give him an exit option from Iraq. He's made his bed. Now he can lie in it. Come next election, C-Ya!

 

[onthebottom]

Your boys are doing their part

but your government isn't, I think that was the point of the article. I'm sure all that heavy-handed school rebuilding is going to come back to haunt us.

And while we're bearing our "I'm so sick of hearing", I'm sick of hearing how the US is so unilateral and so heavy handed. We are forced to lead on every stinking issue in this toilet of a world – Korea – what is the mighty Canadian empire doing about that, Israel / Palestinians – where are the heroic and high-and-mighty Canadians on that? Who MADE the Bosnia campaign work? I know, you sent 4 guys and they did a great job even though they had to ride with us over there but listen at the end of the day if the US doesn’t show it doesn’t happen. The friking French are hold up in their compound in Africa at the moment – give me a break.

Glad I got that off my chest.

Bush is going to destroy Dean in 11 months - it’ll make Mondale look competitive.

OTB

 

[james t kirk]

Re: Re: Re: This is a shame

The economy and the budget are another issue. The economy is blazing right now (tax cuts and low interest rates helped) and has a very good outlook for Q4 03 and CY 04. As the economy grows so will tax revenues (social program costs will decline) although I would agree that Bush has been on a spending spree. 9/11 was very expensive and will continue to be for another 5 years or so (expanded domestic security and military spending, which you call obcene I think).

911 eh, well i agree there were costs associated with that, but not 500 billion worth which is where the US deficit is headed next year. That's after 395 billion this year and 200 billion the year before that.

All in all, Shrub has increased your debt by about a paultry trillion dollars since taking office. Hardly responsible economics.

You'd better hope that that "blazing economy" doesn't ignite inflation there bud, cause if it does, old Uncle Allan Greenspan is going to jack those rates up quicker than you can say "oh fuck" and the interest that the US will have to pay will be crippling.

\The arguement has been made that Shrub is stimulating the economy by spending money like a drunken sailor in order to ensure his re-election and once that happens, he will turn off the tap.

And, if the US economy is blazing right now, how come it's not adding any jobs, in fact, it's shedding jobs still. Maybe you want to tune into CNN

Here's the link in case you missed it....

http://money.cnn.com/2003/12/04/news/economy/jobless/index.htm

And why has the stock market been moving sideways more or less in the last 6 weeks??

And why has the American dollar continued to tank if all is so rosy in the good ole USA????

(Bet you have really noticed that your hobbying money doesn't go as far as it used to in good ole YYZ!)

I wouldn't spend too much of your time worrying about our deficit issues here; we're in hoc about 50% of GDP as are you and most developed nations. Great Economist article this month about explicit deficit (above mentioned government bonds) and implied deficit (Canada had the highest implied deficit by far - all those generous social programs are going to break you eventually) which are the costs of social programs forecasted out 25 years.
OTB

Please post a link.

Here's mine refuting your above statements.

http://www.policyalternatives.ca/afb/afb2004martindeficitssum.html

Or, maybe you prefer a link to Statistics Canada

http://canadianeconomy.gc.ca/english/economy/federal.cfm

Current Canadian federal debt is $510 billion Canadian dollars, or about 390 billion US dollars.

Now, how much is current federal US debt?????

About 7 trillion US dollars (wow!!)

Here's a link mon ami......

http://www.publicdebt.treas.gov/opd/opdpenny.htm

Now how much is US GDP???? Around 11 trillion dollars I believe

Here's another link to the CIA fact book........a bit old, but i bumped my figure up to allow for it. (It states US GDP as 10.4 trillion.)

http://www.cia.gov/cia/publications/factbook/geos/us.html


Ok, so a total debt of 7 Trillion / 11 Trillion = 64 percent (ouch!!)

Now lets look at Canadian federal debt.

From above = 390 billion US / 1 trillion US (the same CIA website says it's about 923 billion US, but that's a bit old, and I remember reading in the Globe and Mail a while back that it had surpassed the 1 trillion mark.

So Canada comes in at roughly 40 of GDP.


So, by my estimate, the US is in considerably more long term trouble than we are. Plus shrub keeps spending more and more money he doesn't have.

Hardly prudent economics....

I wouldn't worry too much about our social programmes if I were you. I'd start worrying about what is going to happen when Greenspan jacks up those rates and how you are going to pay for the day to day running of your government, never mind what little social programmes you have.

 

[jwmorrice]

Re: I don't think

I don't think the idea is for you to spend more on self-defense - you're pretty secure. The idea is that as a rich nation you should share in the costs / obligations of rich nations - one of those is peace keeping. OTB

Certainly the idea is not to spend more on self-defence. Canada is protected on three sides by oceans. As bbking noted, our only potential adversary is the United States. However, we do not face a conventional military threat. American moral considerations would not allow an invasion.

What we face instead is the slow erosion of our sovereignty in the north and on the coasts. Meeting that threat should be our priority. That was why I suggested that Canada would be better off spending its money on beefed up coastal forces and ice breakers. We need to show the flag in those areas. Moreover, we require the capability to enforce fishing and environmental laws and to interdict smuggling operations.

The capability for "peace keeping" operations should be well down on the list of priorities. The more military significance we have, the more Washington will attempt to involve us in its conflicts. Had we the military wherewithal, I wonder if Canada could have successfully resisted American pressure to go to war with the US in Iraq. God knows what vital interests we presently have in Afghanistan and yet there we are, making the world a safer place for opium growers and warlords.

I think too, that it's probably in our interest, and the world's interest, that the US get its nose bloodied in some such places as Iraq and Afghanistan. It might make its government a little less likely to engage in adventures with potentially greater consequences, e.g. in the Republic of Georgia. So, let us in Canada devise a military establishment that easily allows us to stand apart from the US when these situations arise.

Sentiment tends to drive Canada together with the US. However, it's best to remember and apply the words of Lord Palmerston: "We have no eternal allies and we have no perpetual enemies. Our interests are eternal and perpetual, and these interests it is our duty to follow."

jwm

 

[*d*]

Canada has no need for a large defense department. We have no real enemies to speak of and use our military strictly for peacekeeping. Whether the size of our military is sufficient for the ever increasing peacekeeping needs of the world, well that's another story. After all, there are some countries with large offense departments who continue to perpetuate terror rather than peace. Cleaning up after their aggression does keeps us busy.

 

[onthebottom]

JTK, as I'm writing this reply on my phone I'll have to post the link ( and refute some of these comments) tomorrow. The artical is in the Nov. 22nd addition of the Economist page 76. The graph shows (using 2002 data) all large economies (with a couple exceptions) running just under 50% of GDP explicit Govt debt. Implicit debt is aproxa 420% of GDP in Canada + 260% in the US.

OTB

 

[onthebottom]

Re: Re: Re: Re: This is a shame

Please post a link.

Here's mine refuting your above statements.

.... [/B]

It's a protected artical so here it is:

In the long run we are all broke

Nov 20th 2003
From The Economist print edition


How to stop governments going bust

INVESTORS have good reason to worry about states defaulting on their loans: Argentina and Russia provide chastening recent reminders. But both were dysfunctional economies with troubled political pasts. Surely, there is no need to worry about the indebtedness of the governments of stable, advanced countries?

Maybe not, but take a look all the same at the table below. Most countries' explicit net debt—issued as bonds and traded every day in financial markets—is at manageable levels, relative to GDP. However, embodied in current tax and expenditure policies are a lot of obligations for which governments have not yet had to make explicit provision. This implicit liability arises mainly from future increases in spending on pensions and health care. Include it, and total debt vaults to levels last seen (for explicit debt) in wartime. Governments often fall into bad habits when their debts are so high, usually by resorting to the printing press and using inflation to cut the real value of their liabilities.

Credit-rating agencies are alerting their clients to the danger. Standard & Poor's gave warning last year that many European governments will be relegated to the second division of borrowers if they do not tackle spending commitments that are set to soar as populations age. So far, however, investors do not appear to be charging higher risk premiums on explicit debt—the sanction that would most concentrate the minds of finance ministers.

Yet the long-term budgetary risks are real and looming ever closer, says Peter Heller, deputy director of fiscal affairs at the International Monetary Fund, in a thought-provoking new book*. These risks arise not only from the effects of an ageing population on pension and health-care bills, but also potentially from medical technology, global warming, security and globalisation. Irrespective of ageing, advances in medical technology are likely to push up public spending on health care: the more medical science and public health services can provide, the more people will want. Climate change may increase the incidence of floods, storms and droughts—“extreme weather events”—after which governments often step in as insurers of last resort. Some governments are already under pressure to spend more on defence: the “peace dividend” made possible by the end of the cold war is exhausted. And globalisation may limit governments' ability to exploit their national tax bases as both capital and labour become increasingly footloose.

There may be some pleasant surprises to set against this catalogue of doom. Rising productivity ought to mean that future generations are richer and will be able to afford bigger tax bills, especially if the world economy enjoys the sort of productivity growth that America has experienced in recent years. Europeans could start to have more children, who would prop up their onerous pay-as-you-go pension systems.

Mr Heller accepts that there are huge uncertainties; after all, fiscal forecasts a year ahead, let alone a decade or more, are often wildly wrong. But he thinks that the balance of risks lies on the downside. Worse, risks may hit the public finances at the same time; for example, governments in Europe could find their outlays ballooning from weather-related damage as well as population ageing. As for appealing to the generosity of future richer generations, he is properly dubious about governments' ability to squeeze more tax out of their citizens. Higher tax rates might merely mean a bigger shadow economy, or an abandonment of over-taxed work in favour of untaxed leisure.



1 of 2

OTB

 

[onthebottom]

2 of 2:

Plan, plan and plan again
So what is to be done? First, governments must look much farther ahead than they do now. An increasing number of western countries are planning their public finances on a basis of three to five years, but this is nowhere near enough, argues Mr Heller. They need to incorporate a long-range perspective (of at least 25 years and preferably more) into their budgets. Second, these projections should be vetted by independent agencies such as America's Congressional Budget Office, because of governments' tendency to see the silver lining and not the cloud.

Such long-range forecasts would alert both politicians and the general public to the need for pre-emptive action to avoid a future fiscal crunch. One way forward would then be to run budget surpluses over the next few years in order to create borrowing room in the more distant future. But Mr Heller cautions against pinning too much hope on this approach. It has been tried before. In the late 1990s, America's Social Security surpluses were supposedly in a “lockbox”—which was prised open the moment the rest of the federal budget swung into deficit. Similarly, Norway's supposedly separate rainy-day fund, financed from oil and gas revenues, was raided in 2001 to meet immediate budgetary pressures.

If governments are to avoid going bust, politicians will have to grasp the nettle. They must cut back on the over-generous promises they have made to their citizens, above all in pensions and health care. And they must do so sooner rather than later. Delay means that future generations of pensioners will find themselves short-changed through an abrupt cut in benefits. Given due warning, they could take steps to protect their incomes in retirement.

Politically, this is not much easier than promising to lock away surpluses. Even so, recent pension reforms by European governments are a small step in the right direction. But how much better it would be if governments published comprehensive long-range fiscal projections, scrutinised by independent bodies and open to public debate. Unless governments are forced to be honest about their predicament, it will be hard to stop them going bust

OTB

 

[onthebottom]

Here is the graph

Oops, Terb won't let me import the graph, 9k, must be too big.

OTB

 

[onthebottom]

Re: Re: Your boys are doing their part

What in god's name would you have us do? We have the population of Ohio - Yes we do have a pretty good economy. What would we build an army for. Our only potential enemy is the U.S. and look how fast the US was able to roll over a Country with 10X our fire power Iraq, we would have to spend 80%GDP to mount a credible defense. OTB you said at one time we had credible forces, and you where right, but the dismantling of the Canadian Army began back in the late 50's. OTB are you aware that Canada is the only Country in the world with the knowledge and ability to become a nuclear power and decided not to in agreement with the US - we even gave up on an advance jet in agreement with the U.S. and sent our engineers to the US to help build planes. OTB did you know that we have the largest proven resource of fissionable material and by treaty we sell only to the US. For what ever reason in the late 50's and 60's the US and Canada came to an agreement that Canada should reduce it's military. Even today, about the only thing that Bush and Chretien/Martin have in agreement is that a level of co-operation between the two countries military be increased. Today the US has the right to move military troops into Canada without a formal request and vice versa. So lets recap - you want Canada to re-arm, if we where to that would mean throwing out all past agreements, including nukes. I think, I don't know for sure but the decissions made between our two countries where to leave Canada as an honest broker during the Cold War and continues to this day.

I don't know how many times I have to say this

Peace Keeping

Peace Keeping

Peace Keeping

You don't need nukes or even fighter jets for peace keeping, you need light amour, well armed troops, helicopters and transport planes. I have no idea why you have subs?

You don't need to protect yourself - we don't want you and no one else can get to you without coming thru us so don't worry about it.

OTB

 

[onthebottom]

Re: Bush re-election

OTB - with the economy heating up the election is Bush's to lose but Dean's working of the Blue collar vote ( steel tariff thing didn't help Bush) adding Wesley Clarke as VP and sending Clinton out to work the black vote - this election might get close.

I'm not so sure, the steel tariff thing cuts both ways, it helps steel producing states but hurts steel manufacturing states. The EU was going to target Florida (OJ) and Michigan with their tariffs, Bush didn't have a choice. What I find funny is that there is no debate here (even on intelligent news sources like NPR) about the veracity of the tariffs in the first place (was there dumping) and the need for the US to be seen as a free trading partner.

Dean is going to have a very hard time with middle America (where presidents are elected), those guys driving pickups with flags in their rear windows were not impressed with his comments. You can only imagine how a Park Avenue, Long Island spoiled kid is going to look next to a sitting president from Texas. I think the guy who owns the boots wins in the middle of the country.

Wesley Clark is going to be a non-issue.

OTB

 

[Trelew]

Personally I think that our Armed Forces should put a motirtorium on International work (or at least put it to a bare mininmum) and pull all our guys & Gals back to Canada. They can keep them busy by replacing all the security guards at airports and other ports of call. Then government can get off their overpaid asses and start to put the funding for the military back up to where it should be, so that the military can rebuild itself back to respectable levels so that it can meet its international commitments.

It's really sad to see what politicians and US meddling has done to what was a proud military heritage in this country.

 

[rdhaired_vixen]

My oldest daughter just left the Princess Patricia and im damn glad shes now home!!!!!

 

[onthebottom]

Re: Re: Re: Re: This is a shame

911 eh, well i agree there were costs associated with that, but not 500 billion worth which is where the US deficit is headed next year. That's after 395 billion this year and 200 billion the year before that.

All in all, Shrub has increased your debt by about a paultry trillion dollars since taking office. Hardly responsible economics.

You'd better hope that that "blazing economy" doesn't ignite inflation there bud, cause if it does, old Uncle Allan Greenspan is going to jack those rates up quicker than you can say "oh fuck" and the interest that the US will have to pay will be crippling.

\The arguement has been made that Shrub is stimulating the economy by spending money like a drunken sailor in order to ensure his re-election and once that happens, he will turn off the tap.

And, if the US economy is blazing right now, how come it's not adding any jobs, in fact, it's shedding jobs still. Maybe you want to tune into CNN

Bad timing "bud" given that unemployment just dropped to 5.9%, it's lowest in 8 months. Fewer jobs were added than hoped in November but there were jobs added (that's 4 months in a row).

I do think Bush is spending too much, I agreed with the tax cuts to stimulate the economy (a growing economy is what solves deficits not increased taxation) but think that some of the other spending is getting a bit out of control. I give the government a pass on defence for the medium term - there are still asses that need to be kicked and you can't do that for free (which is the concept that started this thread I belive).

Bush is not the first or last president to seek a second term by fluffing the economy - he's doing an amazingly good job of it.

There is almost no sign of inflation down here yet, but you are correct in that instrest rates will have to rise at some point. But ours are so much less than most countries (including yours) that we have quite a way to go.

I think the best parrellel of today is when Reagan decided to win the cold war by spending the Russians into submission (remember the 600 ship Navy). It was expensive, casued large deficits (much larger as a percent of GDP than today) and worked.

And why has the stock market been moving sideways more or less in the last 6 weeks??

Becasue it's a leading indicator (that why those guys on Wall Street live in nicer houses than you do), it was going up during the first half of the year when no one could figure out why. Now we have 8 in 10 companies beating earnings estimates and a blazing economy. And the market is at a 52 week high - what was your point?

And why has the American dollar continued to tank if all is so rosy in the good ole USA???? ??

(Bet you have really noticed that your hobbying money doesn't go as far as it used to in good ole YYZ!)

Becasue you get very low interest rates if you buy dollars, our economy has been slow (reduces demand for dollars) and we have large trade deficits. The low dollar will help make our stuff cheaper (as well as our labour) - this will help the economy - ours that is, and hurt yours.

And I have noticed but it's still so much better and cheaper than here that it doesn't affect my "buying decions".


OTB

 

[onthebottom]

Re: Re: I don't think

......

The capability for "peace keeping" operations should be well down on the list of priorities. The more military significance we have, the more Washington will attempt to involve us in its conflicts. Had we the military wherewithal, I wonder if Canada could have successfully resisted American pressure to go to war with the US in Iraq. God knows what vital interests we presently have in Afghanistan and yet there we are, making the world a safer place for opium growers and warlords.

I strongly disagree - this is a great example of Canadians thinking small. Like it or not you are a rich country - that means you have obligations to others. This is just pure chicken *hit.

......
I think too, that it's probably in our interest, and the world's interest, that the US get its nose bloodied in some such places as Iraq and Afghanistan. It might make its government a little less likely to engage in adventures with potentially greater consequences, e.g. in the Republic of Georgia. So, let us in Canada devise a military establishment that easily allows us to stand apart from the US when these situations arise.

The great and mighty impotent strategy? And while I take offense to your "nose bloodied" comment I wouldn't take too much comfort in it if I were you. We've been sucker punched and won't quickly forget it, the world is now a different place and American policy will be much more aggressive - weather you like it or not.

OTB

 

[onthebottom]

Canada has no need for a large defense department. We have no real enemies to speak of and use our military strictly for peacekeeping. Whether the size of our military is sufficient for the ever increasing peacekeeping needs of the world, well that's another story. After all, there are some countries with large offense departments who continue to perpetuate terror rather than peace. Cleaning up after their aggression does keeps us busy.

I think that's the general topic of this thread, what do you need for peace keeping.

OTB

 

[someone]

Many in the military don't want to see it go along the road it is traveling down: that of peacekeeping. That's our "niche" and where we should focus our efforts - NOT on submarines, tanks, heavy artillery, and all the other big expense items that militaries around the world salivate over. Any report that was partially written or funded by the military needs to be taken with a grain of salt.

Canada has not been involved in a conventional peace keeping mission in years. The closest we have come for some time are peace making missions. Even in the case of old fashion peace keeping missions, it was necessary to have enough to be credable as a bluffer between the two opposing forces.

 

[rdhaired_vixen]

Have to agree with otbottom here
we are being led into a rich country.. not just in our military but in our everyday lives as well.
i myself do not smoke but for those of you who do , realize this is happening there as well.
there will be nothing left but poor folk and rich folk and no middle class anymore... yeh we need more rich folk and more jerry springer contestants...

 

[onthebottom]

I don't think

it's important for Canada to be a US lap dog - I do think it's important that you have the resources to act on your policy positions. We're enough the same that I'm confident you'll do the right thing more often than not.

Dean is caught; his strategy has been to run from the left and has tapped into the anti-Bush anger here. If he moves right he'll alienate his base and not do himself much good in the center. Clarke is an interesting guy, looks better on paper than in person. Ask yourself this - how many military people did you see in the audience in Little Rock during his announcement? None! In a close click like the military he has no friends. Not a guy that's going to draw alot of people to him.

OTB

 

[jwmorrice]

Re: Re: Re: I don't think

I strongly disagree - this is a great example of Canadians thinking small. Like it or not you are a rich country - that means you have obligations to others. This is just pure chicken *hit.

I reject your characterisation. I would suggest it isn't thinking small. It's thinking in our own best interests and not that of Washington, etc. For a small nation to seek the approval of others by catering to their wishes would truly be "chicken *hit".

The great and mighty impotent strategy? And while I take offence to your "nose bloodied" comment I wouldn't take too much comfort in it if I were you. We've been sucker punched and won't quickly forget it, the world is now a different place and American policy will be much more aggressive - weather you like it or not.

OTB

The question of how long "American policy will be much more aggressive - weather (sic!) you like it or not" is an interesting one. I would suggest however, that American foreign policy is not impervious to learning from experience. Reversals of fortune would likely have the salutary effect I mentioned.

jwm