1 billion $ spending cuts proposed for Canadian army

[Berkut]

Jesus, read her comment. We are going to cut the people brought in to support operations in Afghanistan, but this won't affect front line operations! Huh? How does that work?

Because Canada is fully withdrawing from Afghanistan by the end of 2011.

The plan is aimed at making savings over several years, not everything immediately.

Plus it is just that, one proposed plan, not a policy.

Defence Minister Peter MacKay said that Leslie's report was being treated as a useful source of information but would not be prescriptive.

"It is but one stream of information," MacKay told Postmedia News. "Keep in mind that we have numerous sources of information that we rely on as we go through this transformation, not the least of which is the senior [military] leadership."

So what front line operations will Canada be involved in that the cuts would not impact then?

And like I've said about 4 times now - if they want to cut, cut away. They ramped up spending, now if they want to ramp it back down, fine. The only objection I had was to the idea that a 5% cut was trivial, because it was only 5%. Canada doesn't spend much as it is, even if it is more than they did before, and cutting 5% of that is not trivial.

Huh? They ramped up spending because of Afganistan; they plan on ramping down spending when they leave Afganistan.

What's the source of confusion here?

I don't know - which part are you confused by?

[Malthus]

I don't know - which part are you confused by?

Why you are arguing furiously about a non-issue.

Clearly, if they are ending a mission, and plan to cut the spending they were spending on that mission, not spending the money they no longer need to spend for a mission they no longer have isn't going to have any significant impact on operations.

[crazy canuck]

The US IS most certainly doing you a favor, but that doesn't mean at all that the US is doing so out of anything other than their own best interests.

In what way?  The missiles/bombers are coming for you...

Of course they are coming for you as well. As is all the other unpleasant shit in the world that interferes with our cushy standard of living.

I suppose if it makes you feel better to blame others for the shitty position your country is in you have to belief this sort of nonsense.

[Berkut]

The US IS most certainly doing you a favor, but that doesn't mean at all that the US is doing so out of anything other than their own best interests.

In what way?  The missiles/bombers are coming for you...

Of course they are coming for you as well. As is all the other unpleasant shit in the world that interferes with our cushy standard of living.

I suppose if it makes you feel better to blame others for the shitty position your country is in you have to belief this sort of nonsense.

That sentence is an impressive construct of strawman piled onto ad hom stacked on top of some just plain old insecurity. It's ok CC, we really do appreciate all that Canada does to help out.

[Berkut]

I don't know - which part are you confused by?

Why you are arguing furiously about a non-issue.

I am not. What is bizarre is why all the Canucks are feeling all put out that I objected to BBs comment that cutting 5% by definition is immaterial, because it is just 5%.

Clearly, if they are ending a mission, and plan to cut the spending they were spending on that mission, not spending the money they no longer need to spend for a mission they no longer have isn't going to have any significant impact on operations.

And? I still don't see how this is confusing you.

[Malthus]

I don't know - which part are you confused by?

Why you are arguing furiously about a non-issue.

I am not. What is bizarre is why all the Canucks are feeling all put out that I objected to BBs comment that cutting 5% by definition is immaterial, because it is just 5%.

Clearly, if they are ending a mission, and plan to cut the spending they were spending on that mission, not spending the money they no longer need to spend for a mission they no longer have isn't going to have any significant impact on operations.

And? I still don't see how this is confusing you.

Ramping down spending that has been ramped up for a paticular purpose isn't a "material" cut.

When people think of a "material" cut, they think of whether or not a cut actually impacts the service provided. This does not, by definition.

From your previous post:

Oh please. Government is citing the old "Oh, we can just cut waste and inefficiency!" mantra. And you are going to just swallow it whole? Whatever.

Jesus, read her comment. We are going to cut the people brought in to support operations in Afghanistan, but this won't affect front line operations! Huh? How does that work?

[Grey Fox]

Berkut, repent my son.

Canada's Military is awesome & you know it.

[Berkut]

I don't know - which part are you confused by?

Why you are arguing furiously about a non-issue.

I am not. What is bizarre is why all the Canucks are feeling all put out that I objected to BBs comment that cutting 5% by definition is immaterial, because it is just 5%.

Clearly, if they are ending a mission, and plan to cut the spending they were spending on that mission, not spending the money they no longer need to spend for a mission they no longer have isn't going to have any significant impact on operations.

And? I still don't see how this is confusing you.

Ramping down spending that has been ramped up for a paticular purpose isn't a "material" cut.

Of course it is. If the US decides to buy new bombers, and then later on decides they don't want them anymore, and hence cuts the funding for them, that is still a cut, and still means the US won't be able to do something that they planned on being able to do, or could do previously if those bombers were to replace existing capability.

Just because Canada used to not be able to support a deployment like Afghanistan, and has decided that in the future they don't want to be able to support that kind of deployment (or are willing to eat the ramp up costs at that time rather than simply maintain them), it is still a cut, and is still materially impacting their ability to project power.

WHICH IS FINE, AND NOT UNREASONABLE.

But it is most certainly a cut. A 5% cut in funding for the military is a pretty damn big reduction, especially when you weren't spending much to begin with. That has been my only point throughout the entire angst shown over my reaction to BBs initial "$1 billion is practically nothing, since we spend $21 billion!".

[crazy canuck]

Berkut, repent my son.

Canada's Military is awesome & you know it.

Naw he has to blame US overspending on something - cant possibly be the US.

[Barrister]

I love how $21 billion, or to put it another way, $21,000,000,000 becomes "you weren't spending much to begin with".

[Berkut]

Berkut, repent my son.

Canada's Military is awesome & you know it.

Naw he has to blame US overspending on something - cant possibly be the US.

Who peed in your oatmeal?

Seriously, now you are just flat out lying about what I've said. I've never once blamed US "overspending" on Canada, nor have I even brought up US spending in relation to this conversation, nor do I think what the US spends on defense has anything to do with Canada at all.

So how about you just go fuck yourself? Are you channeling Marty or something?

[Barrister]

Berkut, repent my son.

Canada's Military is awesome & you know it.

Naw he has to blame US overspending on something - cant possibly be the US.

Who peed in your oatmeal?

Seriously, now you are just flat out lying about what I've said. I've never once blamed US "overspending" on Canada, nor have I even brought up US spending in relation to this conversation, nor do I think what the US spends on defense has anything to do with Canada at all.

So how about you just go fuck yourself? Are you channeling Marty or something?

You're either upset about something, or trolling pretty hard in this thread...

[Berkut]

I love how $21 billion, or to put it another way, $21,000,000,000 becomes "you weren't spending much to begin with".

It isn't that much at all. Something like 1.5% of your GDP, right?

[Grey Fox]

Is 4.7% of GDP a lot?

[crazy canuck]

Seriously, now you are just flat out lying about what I've said. I've never once blamed US "overspending" on Canada

Ah so all those seemingly condescending comments about the US paying for our defence so we could enjoy our standard of living were really meant to suggest that you enjoy the fact that you pay for us.  Got it.