1 billion $ spending cuts proposed for Canadian army

[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?

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

Right, so I guess that makes it ok for CC to just make shit up about what I said. Nice to see where you stand on integrity Beebs. CC is your tribemate, so I guess he can lie about what I say and you have his back. Nice.

I am neither upset or trolling. Just pointing out that 5% is not trivial.

[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.

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...

Right, so I guess that makes it ok for CC to just make shit up about what I said. Nice to see where you stand on integrity Beebs. CC is your tribemate, so I guess he can lie about what I say and you have his back. Nice.

I am neither upset or trolling. Just pointing out that 5% is not trivial.

Poor Berk, you tried the usual US shtick to "we pay for you God Dammit" and it didnt work.

[Malthus]

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!".

Bombers are unlike a specific mission such as Afganistan, and the difference shows why you are wrong.

Afganistan is an ongoing war. Spending is earmarked for that alone, and it is obviously going to be higher than spending when a country is *not* involved in a war.

You seem to be of the opinion that spending on a war ought to be maintained in peacetime, just in case another war happens along - or rather, that if such spending is *not* maintained, that is some sort "material" cut which could "affect front line operations".

Bombers, in contrast, are a weapons system, not necessarily particular to a particular conflict. Indeed, if they are cut, "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".

Canada is simply returning to its pre-war state. It has exactly the capacity it had before.

[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...

Right, so I guess that makes it ok for CC to just make shit up about what I said. Nice to see where you stand on integrity Beebs. CC is your tribemate, so I guess he can lie about what I say and you have his back. Nice.

I am neither upset or trolling. Just pointing out that 5% is not trivial.

Oh Good Grief.

[Berkut]

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!".

Bombers are unlike a specific mission such as Afganistan, and the difference shows why you are wrong.

Afganistan is an ongoing war. Spending is earmarked for that alone, and it is obviously going to be higher than spending when a country is *not* involved in a war.

You seem to be of the opinion that spending on a war ought to be maintained in peacetime, just in case another war happens along - or rather, that if such spending is *not* maintained, that is some sort "material" cut which could "affect front line operations".

No, I am of the opinion that cutting a billion from a 21 billion dollar defense budget is not trivial. Where did you get the idea that I thought spending on a war ought to be maintained? Where did I say anything, in fact, about what Canada "ought" to do?

I think you must be reading what CC says I am saying, rather than what I am actually saying.

[crazy canuck]

Or Berk, you are just forgetting what you said...

[Berkut]

Or Berk, you are just forgetting what you said...

Seems possible. Could you point out where I said that it is Canada's fault that the US has over-spent on their military?

I've been wrong before, but I rather suspect I would remember saying something that stupid.

[crazy canuck]

Or Berk, you are just forgetting what you said...

Seems possible. Could you point out where I said that it is Canada's fault that the US has over-spent on their military?

I've been wrong before, but I rather suspect I would remember saying something that stupid.

Well you have said a number of stupid things in this thread. Such as the fact that the US pays for our defence.  I have already raised the issue of the implication of your statement.  You have evidently forgotten that already.

[Berkut]

Or Berk, you are just forgetting what you said...

Seems possible. Could you point out where I said that it is Canada's fault that the US has over-spent on their military?

I've been wrong before, but I rather suspect I would remember saying something that stupid.

Well you have said a number of stupid things in this thread. Such as the fact that the US pays for our defence.  I have already raised the issue of the implication of your statement.  You have evidently forgotten that already.

Sorry, could you point out where I said that it is Canada's fault that the US has over-spent on their military?

Or just continue to confirm that you are a liar by non-responses and "implications".

[Grey Fox]

[crazy canuck]

Or just continue to confirm that you are a liar by non-responses and "implications".

[Berkut]

Or just continue to confirm that you are a liar by non-responses and "implications".

Thanks, appreciate your honesty in this at least. x10.

[HVC]

You guys should give Berk more respect. he spends billions protecting us

[viper37]

Canada is simply returning to its pre-war state. It has exactly the capacity it had before.

actually, more than we did before, despite the cuts.  The new equipment is there (uniforms, trucks, rifles, helos, and soon the F35 to replace the CF-18)

[Barrister]

Berkut - what purpose does accusing everyone of being "dishonest" serve in this particular conversation?  Do you think that it helps get the conversation going?  Or are you merely trying to provoke a reaction from CC or myself?