Site Search:
 
Speak Korean Now!
Teach English Abroad and Get Paid to see the World!
Korean Job Discussion Forums Forum Index Korean Job Discussion Forums
"The Internet's Meeting Place for ESL/EFL Teachers from Around the World!"
 
 FAQFAQ   SearchSearch   MemberlistMemberlist   UsergroupsUsergroups   RegisterRegister 
 ProfileProfile   Log in to check your private messagesLog in to check your private messages   Log inLog in 

Harper Set to Announce $15 Billion in Military Spending
Goto page 1, 2  Next
 
Post new topic   Reply to topic    Korean Job Discussion Forums Forum Index -> Current Events Forum
View previous topic :: View next topic  
Author Message
igotthisguitar



Joined: 08 Apr 2003
Location: South Korea (Permanent Vacation)

PostPosted: Thu Jun 22, 2006 4:37 am    Post subject: Harper Set to Announce $15 Billion in Military Spending Reply with quote

Harper Set to Announce $15 Billion in Military Spending
Wed Jun 21, 09:51 PM EST

Ottawa will announce $15 billion in new spending on the Canadian military next week, CBC News has learned.

A report by SRC, the CBC's French language service, says the spending spree will be "Christmas in June for the Canadian Forces."

On Monday, Prime Minister Stephen Harper is set to announce in Halifax that the Conservative government will fund the building of three new supply ships. That is expected to cost about $2.1 billion.

On Tuesday, the announcement will be to give the army new trucks. That promise, worth about $1.1 billion, will be made in Quebec.

On Wednesday, in Edmonton, will come the official announcement about helicopters. The prime minister will issue an invitation to tender for 15 new helicopters at a cost of about $4.2 billion.

Finally, on Thursday at CFB Trenton in Ontario, Harper will announce a competition worth $4.6 billion to replace Canada's aging fleet of Hercules aircraft, some of which date back to the 1960s.

Harper will also promise to buy at least four C-17 transport planes, which are massive heavy-lift aircraft, at a cost of $3 billion.

That adds up to over $15 billion and fulfills a campaign promise by the Conservatives to make the Canadian military a top priority.

http://ca.news.yahoo.com/cbc/s/21062006/3/canada-harper-set-announce-15-billion-military-spending.html
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website Yahoo Messenger
Octavius Hite



Joined: 28 Jan 2004
Location: Househunting, looking for a new bunker from which to convert the world to homosexuality.

PostPosted: Thu Jun 22, 2006 5:15 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Its good that he's investing in the forces so that they may do their jobs better and more safely but O'Connor has been reading the Cheney handbook way too much. His desire for the C-17 despite Hillier saying it was not wanted or needed (he prefers the Herc) scares me and they will pay come next election if they keep behaving this way.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
WorldWide



Joined: 28 Apr 2006

PostPosted: Thu Jun 22, 2006 5:18 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Say goodbye to your surplus, Canada!

Welcome back deep international debt.....
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Octavius Hite



Joined: 28 Jan 2004
Location: Househunting, looking for a new bunker from which to convert the world to homosexuality.

PostPosted: Thu Jun 22, 2006 5:38 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

1 loonie of debt and the Tories will again be decimated and religated to the dustbin, where conservatives belong.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Wrench



Joined: 07 Apr 2005

PostPosted: Thu Jun 22, 2006 5:57 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Its about friggen time. Sending troops under the liberal leadership into A-stan with out weapons was brilliant.

Canadian military really needs to start upgrading their old crap.

I say spend on it or get rid of it and declare nutrality.



I get the feeling Ocatvious is the biggest Liberal Bleedhart that has come out of Canada. Dood you make me sick. You must be from eastern Canada. Yeah yeah, who would you rather have the absolutly corupt liberals or the Communist NDP that would take 5 minutes to run the country into the ground. If I have to choose a lesser evil conservatives is the way I choose. I just hope they start doing something about property issues.

Since I am planning on joing the armed forces when I get back I think this is great Smile w00t for me.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Octavius Hite



Joined: 28 Jan 2004
Location: Househunting, looking for a new bunker from which to convert the world to homosexuality.

PostPosted: Thu Jun 22, 2006 6:12 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Actually it was the Liberals who saved Canada from having to go and beg at the feet of the IMF after The Chin and his girlfriend Campbell nearly destroyed my great country. Please remember that FACT. If the Conservatives had not run this country into massive debt, the Lib's wouldn't have had to destroy the military.

I never said I was against the purchases. Helicopters (one's that actually work unlike our Griffin's), new trucks and a new fleet of Herc's are great. The country shouldn't go into deficit to buy them. The C17's are nothing more than attempt by an old "cold warrior type" (O'Conner) to try and bring back the days of Canadian aircraft carriers and the Airborne.

I am very good friends with Rick Hillier and his family and while him and I do not see eye to eye a great deal (me being a pinko commie afterall) I do trust his judgement. If he says the C17's are unnecessary, they are. You are a know it all soldier wanna be, let's leave the decisions about equipment purchases to the soldiers and not the politicians or the wannabes.

PS, I hope you join the airforce, then my sister is likely to be your boss. Lol, us commie's have lots of high friends! Wink
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Moldy Rutabaga



Joined: 01 Jul 2003
Location: Ansan, Korea

PostPosted: Thu Jun 22, 2006 6:08 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Quote:
Please remember that FACT. If the Conservatives had not run this country into massive debt, the Lib's wouldn't have had to destroy the military.

The fact is that fuhrer Trudeau spent the country into debt, and the Conservatives did little to prevent the spiral downwards. The 90s Liberals were more right-wing than the 80s Conservatives-- and they only balanced the budget by cutting transfer payments to the provinces. This is not an economic achievement.

I know nothing about specific issues, but in general I think the military spending is absolutely necessary if Canada is to remain on the world stage. We cannot continue to demand a voice internationally if we depend on the Americans to defend us. For decades our military has been a running joke and it's nice to see a PM take it seriously.

Ken:>
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Bulsajo



Joined: 16 Jan 2003

PostPosted: Thu Jun 22, 2006 6:24 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Wrench wrote:

I get the feeling Ocatvious is the biggest Liberal Bleedhart that has come out of Canada. Dood you make me sick. You must be from eastern Canada. Yeah yeah, who would you rather have the absolutly corupt liberals or the Communist NDP that would take 5 minutes to run the country into the ground. If I have to choose a lesser evil conservatives is the way I choose. I just hope they start doing something about property issues.

Since I am planning on joing the armed forces when I get back I think this is great Smile w00t for me.

You are one of those idiots who wants to throw cash around now but will be shocked to find out that the govt bought $400 dollar hammers and $800 toilet seats.
There's a difference between wisely re-equipping and pissing money away for political points, don't you think?

Gonna join the military when you get home? Great, maybe you'll get to clean the heads on one of those 'frigits' you've been talking about...
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Octavius Hite



Joined: 28 Jan 2004
Location: Househunting, looking for a new bunker from which to convert the world to homosexuality.

PostPosted: Thu Jun 22, 2006 6:27 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

I'm not against the military spending as long as we aren't going into deficit spending and its what is needed, not what is wanted by some political hack. We need a new fleet of Herc's we don't need strategic airlift C-17's. That's all. If people like Gopher had their way Canada would be spending 100 billion dollars to buy stealth bombers and nuclear submarines. It is morally wrong to cut funding to education and healthcare to buy military equipment, and most Canadians believe that. So as long as we are buying stuff that is actually needed to do the mission in Afghanistan then I'm ok with it.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Newbie



Joined: 07 Feb 2003

PostPosted: Thu Jun 22, 2006 11:00 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Wrench wrote:
into A-stan w


So, I'm not the only one that doesn't know how to spell Afghanistan? Wink
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
ddeubel



Joined: 20 Jul 2005

PostPosted: Fri Jun 23, 2006 12:24 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Quote:
I know nothing about specific issues, but in general I think the military spending is absolutely necessary if Canada is to remain on the world stage.


That's the problem with military spending, those spending the money know nothing about specifics..........

I prefer Canada remain off the world stage and peel our potatoes in peace and drink our beer with joy (to paraphrase someone...)..

DD
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website
Newbie



Joined: 07 Feb 2003

PostPosted: Fri Jun 23, 2006 1:37 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

ddeubel wrote:

I prefer Canada remain off the world stage and peel our potatoes in peace and drink our beer with joy (to paraphrase someone...)..
DD


Here, here! I prefer the good old days when we ranked up there with the Irish, Aussies and Zealanders. Simple white folk content on playing sports and drinking beers. Quiet and humble, no one paying attention to us and no idiotic Canadians running around Korea making arses of themselves with their stupid "America blah blah blah" crap
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Alias



Joined: 24 Jan 2003

PostPosted: Fri Jun 23, 2006 2:31 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Moldy Rutabaga wrote:

I know nothing about specific issues, but in general I think the military spending is absolutely necessary if Canada is to remain on the world stage. We cannot continue to demand a voice internationally if we depend on the Americans to defend us.
Ken:>


Defend us against whom? Zee Germans?
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Moldy Rutabaga



Joined: 01 Jul 2003
Location: Ansan, Korea

PostPosted: Fri Jun 23, 2006 6:46 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Maybe not zee Germans-- although there are stories of U-boats off the shores of Canada in past wars!

Every once in a while now I hear suggestions in the world press that Canada should be dropped as a member of the G7/8 and China or India added. We claim to be important, but we're not-- we aren't an economic or military heavyweight anymore in comparison. Other than peacekeeping, our military reputation since the 1950's is nonexistent. Did anyone outside Canada actually care whether or not we wanted to send troops to Iraq--when we didn't have any to send anyway or suitable equipment for them to use?

Some like for the country to be in the shadows, and maybe that's not so bad either. Not many people want to take vengeance on Iceland. But at the same time, if we claim to be a sovereign country we need the capability of defending ourselves. Maybe people don't want us to be obsessed with our military like the Americans-- but if we can't be arsed to police our borders with helicopters built after Vietnam, the Americans will do it for us; in the long run, that may not be a better influence.

Ken:>
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Wrench



Joined: 07 Apr 2005

PostPosted: Fri Jun 23, 2006 7:50 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Octavius Hite wrote:
I'm not against the military spending as long as we aren't going into deficit spending and its what is needed, not what is wanted by some political hack. We need a new fleet of Herc's we don't need strategic airlift C-17's. That's all. If people like Gopher had their way Canada would be spending 100 billion dollars to buy stealth bombers and nuclear submarines. It is morally wrong to cut funding to education and healthcare to buy military equipment, and most Canadians believe that. So as long as we are buying stuff that is actually needed to do the mission in Afghanistan then I'm ok with it.


We need hercs as well as C17's. They are scraping everything in the military, with the new addiotions of LAV vehicles the Hercs are to small. They are redisgning the entire military.

"C-130J can't carry a LAV III, the premier CF land vehicle in any state of combat readyness (we have to pull the turret, remove all ammo and bolt on armour to get it to fit in a C-130 and within the weight limits of the aircraft, and even then the C-130 ain't going anywhere far). MGS will be far worst: It won't fit at all. A400M will easily take a LAV III or MGS in combat readyness (drive it off the airplane and straight into combat), without taxing a limited fleet of a future CF C-17 fleet."


The shit we have is so old its becoming an obvious problem. The traditional army is being redisigned for mobility and fast responce.

http://www.canada.com/nationalpost/news/story.html?id=b57feeea-de73-40be-976f-7076f9331301&k=88600


Canada is in such a piss poor shape its not funny. Hell we can't even give our own guys a ride. Under the Liberals they sold the chinooks helos to the Dutch which they are now using in A-stan to give Canadian soldiers lifts.
http://toyoufromfailinghands.blogspot.com/2006/05/afstan-facts-little-known-in-canada.html

Strategic lifter has been needed for a long time.

http://server09.densan.ca/archivenews/060525/cit/060525a8.htm

I would definetly like to see an article pointing out where Hiller states that Strategic Airlifter is not needed. *Wait is this it?

Code:

Tories set to sink billions into cargo planes for military
Boeing expected to win $2.5B deal; $1B more to be spent on smaller crafts 
Article Tools
    Printer friendly
  E-mail
  Font: * * * *  Mike Blanchfield, The Ottawa Citizen
Published: Saturday, June 03, 2006
As early as Monday, the Harper government will announce details of its multibillion-dollar equipment upgrade for the Canadian Forces, including the purchase of a new fleet of long-range cargo planes and the much-anticipated replacement of its aging Hercules transports.

The upgrades still require a final rubber stamp from cabinet, but it will represent the Conservative government's first response to the wish list presented to cabinet on May 30 by Defence Minister Gordon O'Connor. At that meeting, Mr. O'Connor pitched at least six major capital projects worth more than $8 billion.

Most of those projects, including armoured trucks, ships and other aircraft, have been pushed back to the fall, but two major transport aircraft purchases are ready to launch.

The most controversial of the two will likely be the purchase of four C-17 Globemaster long-range strategic transports at a cost of $1 billion for the planes themselves, plus a 20-year support and maintenance plan that will bring the overall cost to $2.5 billion.

The government is expected to "sole source" the purchase of the four aircraft from the American manufacturer, Boeing, instead of opening up the usual competition for bids for such an expensive purchase. The government is allowed to sole source if it can make the case that no other similar airplane can meet its needs. The only other large, long-range transports available are Russian-built.

The Russian government has attempted to cut into the competition by spearheading its own military trade mission to Ottawa this week, but it appears Canada has decided to buy American. The Forces will likely receive one of the four new C-17s late this year off the Boeing assembly line as part of an order that was already under way for the Australian air force.

Canada doesn't own large transports such as the C-17 and has normally leased such large planes from Russian or Ukrainian companies to carry its heavy equipment on overseas missions.

The Liberals considered a plan to buy large aircraft six years ago, but scrapped the idea. Since then, the deployment of the military's Disaster Assistance Response Team to two major crises -- the Dec. 26, 2004, Asian tsunami and last year's Central Asian earthquake -- has been delayed because transport was not readily available for its personnel and heavy equipment.

Under the government's new accrual accounting methods, the price of the expensive new planes -- among the largest transports in the world and bigger than anything now owned by the air force -- would essentially be spread over the life of the aircraft instead of requiring a lump-sum infusion of defence spending up front.

The Tories will also revive part of a plan announced by the Liberal government shortly before the last federal election to replace the aging fleet of Hercules transports at a cost of $3 billion for up to 16 new planes.

The government is expected to open that project for competitive bidding, but industry insiders say the specifications will likely favour the U.S. firm Lockheed Martin's modern version of the Hercules, the C-130J.

Sources say the Conservatives could not risk sole-sourcing two large airplane purchases, so they expected the statement of requirements for the Hercules replacement will be brief -- as short as one or two pages as opposed to thousands of pages of detailed specifications usually placed before bidders -- and it is expected to call for delivery of the planes by about two years.

That would eliminate the C-130J's main competitor, the Airbus A-400, which is still in the design phase and isn't expected to go into production until 2009.

Many of Canada's shorter-range tactical-lift Hercules date back to the 1960s and it is the workhorse of the current deployment to Afghanistan.

Gen. Rick Hillier, the chief of the defence staff, has said that replacing the Hercules was the top equipment priority of the military and that, if the fleet was ever grounded, Canada would be unable to sustain its overseas deployments.

Parliament recently voted to extend the Canadian military mission to Afghanistan to 2009. There are currently 2,300 troops in Afghanistan.

Other major equipment purchases that were part of the Conservatives' ambitious "Canada First" election platform for the military are being pushed back to later in the year. These include armoured trucks and transport helicopters for the army in Afghanistan, fixed-wing search and rescue planes, a joint supply ship, Arctic icebreakers, and unmanned surveillance aircraft, or drones, that could help patrol the Arctic and both coasts.

Gen. Hillier and Mr. O'Connor have clashed on what the military needs most in terms of airlift. Mr. O'Connor wants a large airplane that can transport equipment overseas, such as the C-17, but Gen. Hillier says more Hercules, which can conduct more missions in hostile theatres under gruelling conditions, are needed.


Gen Hillier only stated that we needed the Hercs more, he didn't say we don't need C-17. This is just unfortunatly in the constraints of Military budget. Any way the new budget has encompassed not only the new Hercs and C-17s thus not making this a big issue any more.

I am actually interested in Joining in the military unlike you. I have most likely done hell of a lot more research about the subject then most of you. I was accepted once into the military, but conditions didn't allow me to sit for 6 month waiting period before I was admited.

Once again I suggest you start doing some research on the topic.

http://toyoufromfailinghands.blogspot.com/2006_06_01_toyoufromfailinghands_archive.html

Start reading.

Army.ca is a good resource as well. Its a premier site for CF soldiers


Last edited by Wrench on Fri Jun 23, 2006 8:08 pm; edited 2 times in total
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Display posts from previous:   
Post new topic   Reply to topic    Korean Job Discussion Forums Forum Index -> Current Events Forum All times are GMT - 8 Hours
Goto page 1, 2  Next
Page 1 of 2

 
Jump to:  
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum


This page is maintained by the one and only Dave Sperling.
Contact Dave's ESL Cafe
Copyright © 2018 Dave Sperling. All Rights Reserved.

Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2002 phpBB Group

TEFL International Supports Dave's ESL Cafe
TEFL Courses, TESOL Course, English Teaching Jobs - TEFL International