1 billion $ spending cuts proposed for Canadian army

[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...

[Razgovory]

I think Berkut hates anyone he perceives as a "free rider".

[sbr]

I think Berkut hates anyone he perceives as a "free rider".

I think you have narrowed it down way too far.

[Razgovory]

I think Berkut hates anyone he perceives as a "free rider".

I think you have narrowed it down way too far.

I am always looking at the root problem.

[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.

[Berkut]

I think Berkut hates anyone he perceives as a "free rider".

As far as free riders go, the Canadians are way, way, WAY down the list when it comes to the military.

[Razgovory]

I think Berkut hates anyone he perceives as a "free rider".

As far as free riders go, the Canadians are way, way, WAY down the list when it comes to the military.

Who else is up there?

[Brazen]

I've written about the cuts and they seem to be very cautious compared with those of other NATO members and unlikely to affect front-line operations. They're mainly about cutting and consolidating the extra civil service, full-time reservists, contractors and consultants that were brought in to support operations in Afghanistan.

Between 2004 and 2010 the combined workforce of DND and the Canadian Forces jumped 18 per cent, or by more than 20,000 people. By March 2010, the departments employed 144,744 people, including 67,857 in the regular forces, 35,665 reservists and 29,348 civilians. The number of civilian personnel grew three times faster over that period than did personnel in the regular forces, the report found.

[viper37]

Well the French ceded large amounts of territory to Spain the year before.

Either they were losing it to the British, or they were giving it to Spain.  The territory was already lost.

[viper37]

Put it this way if that was the only land the British occupied during the war the French would have won...

And had it not been occupied, the territory would not have been given to the British.  If it had been given anyway, then it wouldn't have been a conquest.  Like Louisiana given to Spain and back to France and sold to the Americans.  Not a conquest.
But fall of Quebec = Conquest.  And it's called "War of Conquest" by historians, as well as French&Indian war.
English College in Montreal
Wikipedia

[viper37]

I've written about the cuts and they seem to be very cautious compared with those of other NATO members and unlikely to affect front-line operations. They're mainly about cutting and consolidating the extra civil service, full-time reservists, contractors and consultants that were brought in to support operations in Afghanistan.

Between 2004 and 2010 the combined workforce of DND and the Canadian Forces jumped 18 per cent, or by more than 20,000 people. By March 2010, the departments employed 144,744 people, including 67,857 in the regular forces, 35,665 reservists and 29,348 civilians. The number of civilian personnel grew three times faster over that period than did personnel in the regular forces, the report found.

try explaining that to Berkut again please.  It seems impossible to make any kind of cuts without affecting the end service.  Rationalization is not of this world.  Corporations and government always operate at peak effciency and can never eve reduce their amount of spending without severly affecting their operations.

[Berkut]

I've written about the cuts and they seem to be very cautious compared with those of other NATO members and unlikely to affect front-line operations. They're mainly about cutting and consolidating the extra civil service, full-time reservists, contractors and consultants that were brought in to support operations in Afghanistan.

Between 2004 and 2010 the combined workforce of DND and the Canadian Forces jumped 18 per cent, or by more than 20,000 people. By March 2010, the departments employed 144,744 people, including 67,857 in the regular forces, 35,665 reservists and 29,348 civilians. The number of civilian personnel grew three times faster over that period than did personnel in the regular forces, the report found.

try explaining that to Berkut again please.  It seems impossible to make any kind of cuts without affecting the end service.  Rationalization is not of this world.  Corporations and government always operate at peak effciency and can never eve reduce their amount of spending without severly affecting their operations.

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?

Why where they brought in to support front line operations if NOT having them doesn't affect front line operations?

And I've worked in many a corporation that has laid off people while assuring everyone remaining that everyone being laid off was really just waste and it won't affect anyone's ability to do their job or meet their deliverables. And yeah, that is about 99% bullshit then as well.

[Brazen]

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."

[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.

[Malthus]

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?