• Thanks for stopping by. Logging in to a registered account will remove all generic ads. Please reach out with any questions or concerns.

Military wins no matter what after election

HADES 1962

Guest
Inactive
Reaction score
0
Points
60
Taken form canoe.ca news

Interesting read  ???

Military wins no matter what after election

By STEPHEN THORNE

OTTAWA (CP) - The federal Conservatives say if elected they'll boost the national defence budget "in magnitude," assuring the military a win no matter who's in after the Jan. 23 vote. The Liberal government committed $12.8 billion to military expansion in last February's budget, which will bring the total defence budget to almost $20 billion within five years. Defence Minister Bill Graham has dangled tantalizing toys before Canada's military - new planes, ships and vehicles. He's expanding the forces by 5,000 personnel. But the Conservatives say they'll do even more for defence. "Certainly the Armed Forces aren't going to get less," said the Tory defence critic, retired general Gordon O'Connor. "There's going to be substantially more for the Armed Forces - in magnitude different." The Tories will boost military spending significantly - O'Connor wouldn't say how much - and expand personnel by 15,000, to 75,000, said O'Connor, who drafted the party's defence platform. All Liberal defence policies will be up for review, said O'Connor, including last spring's defence policy statement that was supposed to set the course for Canada's army, navy, air and special forces for 20 years. "We will review everything," O'Connor said. "We have our own policy. It may support what they are doing or it may modify what they are doing."
During the 2004 election campaign, Conservative Leader Stephen Harper promised an extra $5 billion in military spending over five years, 20,000 new soldiers, new tanks, new helicopter-carrying warships and muscular transport planes.
O'Connor, who retired as the director of military requirements and later became an industry lobbyist, said airlift now is his party's No. 1 defence priority.
But it's up in the air whether the Tories will go for 16 mid-range transport planes worth nearly $5 billion, as the Liberals announced Nov. 22, or opt for fewer of those supplemented by larger, heavy-lift aircraft capable of transporting troops and equipment over vast distances.
Under a Conservative government, the Liberal procurement project may go ahead or it may be modified, O'Connor said.
"We believe in airlift," he said. "I consider airlift as the No. 1 equipment requirement for the Armed Forces.
"But an airlift solution based on our policy may be different."
O'Connor said he expects Harper will announce his defence policy before Christmas.
He said the party won't be bound by preconceived ideas. They want to look at requirements before settling on what combination of aircraft would best serve defence.
A Conservative government would also buy more Arctic utility aircraft than the Liberals plan and base some of them further north, he added.
"I believe we should have a firm deployment of new aircraft in the Arctic," he said.
With the Liberals' blessing, navy planners are already in the early stages of acquiring new support ships and transport vessels, similar to those Harper promised in last year's election campaign.
O'Connor said he strongly supports streamlined military procurement practices, but he says the Liberal method will hurt competition and favour certain products - Lockheed Martin's C-130J transport plane, for example.
Prime Minister Paul Martin has said getting what the military needs takes precedence over regional and industrial benefits.
O'Connor said he also supports what he calls the "sensible" Liberal concept of setting out requirements based on performance needs. But he said regional and industrial benefits are a must in any military procurement.
"The biggest waste of time is in the Defence Department," O'Connor said. "They're spending four years now to arrive at a document that says this is what we want."
He said defence procurements have to be directed from the top down, not the bottom up.
"Things will be better for the military" under a Conservative government, O'Connor promised.
"In funding, you're going to see a substantial difference - quite a bit more than the Liberals. We've got to get this Armed Forces out of a hole."
 
Fine -- IF he leaves the C130J issue well enough alone, they are needed - PERIOD.


 
"He said defence procurements have to be directed from the top down, not the bottom up."

Is this not like saying that he does not want he opinion of the Cpl that employs the kit?   I bet listening to that cpl could have prevented things like the LSVW or the Ross Rifle.
 
MCG said:
"He said defence procurements have to be directed from the top down, not the bottom up."

Is this not like saying that he does not want he opinion of the Cpl that employs the kit?   I bet listening to that cpl could have prevented things like the LSVW or the Ross Rifle.

Yup or using the Babblefish decoder
"I'm a pompus ass and know more than you peons..."

I'm out of the country and no logner a resident  - I would never vote Liberal just due to their Gun Control Fiasco, but I would not vote for the CPC with that man touching defence...



 
KevinB said:
I'm out of the country and no logner a resident

You can still vote by special ballot- I registered last week.
http://www.elections.ca/content.asp?section=ele&document=index&dir=39ge/ec78610&lang=e&textonly=false
 
i want to get excited over all those big numbers and significant improvements, but now I know better  :-\

15-20,000 more troops would kick ass, and those transport planes, helicopters, warships.....

please Jesus, let it be so.
 
I'll believe it when I see it.

ALL parties like to dangle that carrot in front the voters at election time.
 
You guys sure could use the new kit and personnel that is for sure.

I hate to say it, but it sounds too good to be true....

I am in the "see it to believe it" camp.

*fingers crossed*


 
This bothers me, a bit:

{O'Connor} said defence procurements have to be directed from the top down, not the bottom up.

If, big IF I thought Gordon O'Connor meant a return to procurement driven by a detailed analysis of policies and requirements, I would agree.

It sounds to me like he wants procurement to be driven by a bunch of his old cronies - lobbyists (including retired admirals and generals who (just like O'Connor was) are employed by big, rich lobbying firms) and politicians sitting around in the Rideau Club - on top of a big office building which looks down on Parliament Hill.

This bothers me a lot:

O'Connor said he also supports what he calls the "sensible" Liberal concept of setting out requirements based on performance needs. But he said regional and industrial benefits are a must in any military procurement.

This may be the dumbest thing any politician has said since those Liberal idiots introduced this highly flawed, wasteful requirement during the CP-140 procurement process back in the early '70s.  "Regional and industrial benefits" have not accomplished anything except to:

"¢ Increase costs - always by more than even the most wildly optimistic guesstimates of benefits;

"¢ Provide photo-ops (free re-election advertising) for government MPs; and

"¢ Line the pockets of lobbyists.

O'Connor is trying to perpetuate all that is worst in our defence procurement system; I have doubts if anything can ever be improved so long as "regional and industrial benefits" are part of the programme.

That being said, even Gordon O'Connor's inane blatherings are insufficient to make me vote Green or NDP or, even worse, Liberal.
 
MCG said:
"He said defence procurements have to be directed from the top down, not the bottom up."

I suspect that this comment has been taken out of context.  It's hard to know exactly what he is referring to, because it is not a direct quote but the author's paraphrasing of Mr. O'Connor's comments.  

MCG said:
Is this not like saying that he does not want he opinion of the Cpl that employs the kit?  I bet listening to that cpl could have prevented things like the LSVW or the Ross Rifle.

It's a good point but I have spoken to Mr. O'Connor a few times and he is genuinely interested in the welfare of the troops and interested in our perspective on how things are running.  

That being said while I am volunteering and voting for the Conservatives, I agree with CdnArtyWife - I'll believe it when I see it.  The Conservatives also cancelled the Avro Arrow project and decommissioned HMCS Bonaventure.  

But to me this election is not so much about military policy but the overarching issue of integrity in government.  Sure, the Conservatives are also guilty of a bit of pork-barrelling when they were in power, but what the Liberals have done is just theft plain and simple.  Would the Conservatives have done the same thing?  Maybe, maybe not.  I would rather put my vote with a party that may or may not steal from us, then a party that already has.
 
Well either Mr. O'Conner has had an attack of common sence ( less the C130 issue) which is a rare thing indeed amoungst elected officials, or someone has done some rather po0inted whispering in his ear...

I just cannot understand how it is that a bunch who are proven to be theives are ahead in the polls?!
 
Slim said:
Well either Mr. O'Conner has had an attack of common sence ( less the C130 issue) which is a rare thing indeed amoungst elected officials, or someone has done some rather po0inted whispering in his ear...

I just cannot understand how it is that a bunch who are proven to be theives are ahead in the polls?!

Unfortunately, my pet rock has more personality than Stephen Harper.  :-[ not that it influences my vote because I believe he's very intelligent, but that and the fact they keep bringing social issues that have been delth with years ago keeps them down.

to get back on subject though.. I agree with the main idea though, that this is a win-win situation for the army.
 
MC said:
Unfortunately, my pet rock has more personality than Stephen Harper.   :-[

Would you rather a personable con man?
 
KevinB said:
Would you rather a personable con man?

should have finished my post befored posting.. just edited.. no, I wouldn't.
 
I don't know if Harper has no personality, his preformance at the Press Dinner a few years a while back was quite good, I think all in all he takes himself far to seriously.  That being said the Conservatives seem to have a real problem with giving details on their platform, there's nothing other than a few bullet points on thier website and any time they announce a plank they seem to be lacking in the details department, almost like their playing into the Liberals' "hidden agenda" accusations
 
onewingwonder said:
Hunter, HMCS Bonaventure was scrapped by Trudeau, not the Conservatives.

Duly noted!  I should have known that.  My grandfather was a squadron commander on the Bonnie.
 
Back
Top