59 replies to this topic

[Derek L]

I'm amazed that anyone over the age of thirteen likes Top Gun; and more astonished that the fans don't recognize it as the unconsciously homosexual movie that it decidedly is.

Perhaps, and I tend to agree that much of the movie is phoney, but it did wonders for naval recruitment……..

[waldo]

To clarify then, there’s no detailed breakdown (in public) of both the old and new figures on the Libyan mission costing? I’d assume if there was, you’d have already linked to them to “disprove” my estimate…….I’ll go with my current estimated breakdown allotment…….

You care to take a stab at the Libyan price tag breakdown?

you're deluded... you can keep on with your MavMath trying to chip away at the ~$350,000,000 total cost... but like I said, why are you so fixed on the total cost (now, for Libya), when total cost is the last thing you want(ed) to discuss with the F-35?

in any case, the real focus seems to be on MacKay lying about the incremental cost... the $100,000,000 cost for dropping bombs on Libya... that, we can presume, according to DND, includes the $25,000,000 cost for the bombs themselves, hey?

[Derek L]

Yowza.

Some of the conservative supporters around here are not only the most defensively partisan folks I've witnessed...no small achievement...

.....they're friggin' statists! Big time. (Non-military tax dollars aside, of course, yes, yes.)

Who woulda thunk it?

As I’ve said earlier (to Waldo?) “Freedom isn’t Free”………Or better put, do we expect another nation (United States) to further subsidize our national defence and further our interests abroad? At what point are we no longer a sovereign nation?

I’ve no problem trying to maximise our current defence budget’s effect on the armed forces, and there are numerous areas of waste within DND that we could very well do without, but ultimately when it comes to sacrificing front line capability for current political largess within the Department of National Defence or defence becomes a dirty political wedge issue , I admittedly object.

[Derek L]

you're deluded... you can keep on with your MavMath trying to chip away at the ~$350,000,000 total cost... but like I said, why are you so fixed on the total cost (now, for Libya), when total cost is the last thing you want(ed) to discuss with the F-35?

I’ve no problem discussing “total costs” associated with the F-35 (I’ve been doing such on this site for over a year)

in any case, the real focus seems to be on MacKay lying about the incremental cost... the $100,000,000 cost for dropping bombs on Libya... that, we can presume, according to DND, includes the $25,000,000 cost for the bombs themselves, hey?

Has their been clear evidence that he lied on the costs?

[eyeball]

As I’ve said earlier (to Waldo?) “Freedom isn’t Free”………

I think the opposite implication is more relevant when assessing military threats like the cost of taking someone else's freedom away militarily which is several magnitudes more costly than defending it. So costly it's much cheaper for a nation to simply buy what they used to have to invade to acquire in the past.

Or better put, do we expect another nation (United States) to further subsidize our national defence and further our interests abroad?

I expect the US to continue making the world a more dangerous place actually at least until such time as they finally go tits up trying to conquer it.

At what point are we no longer a sovereign nation?

I'm afraid this ship's sails were heisted by the winds of globalization and is already just a distant blip on the horizon.

I’ve no problem trying to maximise our current defence budget’s effect on the armed forces, and there are numerous areas of waste within DND that we could very well do without, but ultimately when it comes to sacrificing front line capability for current political largess within the Department of National Defence or defence becomes a dirty political wedge issue , I admittedly object.

I don't buy the narrative that the ridiculous sums of money our military is burning through or needs is due to political largess. I think it's just so freakin' expensive it's completely unsustainable. It's no wonder the government feels it needs to mislead and delude us into believing otherwise.

[Derek L]

I think the opposite implication is more relevant when assessing military threats like the cost of taking someone else's freedom away militarily which is several magnitudes more costly than defending it. So costly it's much cheaper for a nation to simply buy what they used to have to invade to acquire in the past.

Hence pre-emption……..And make your enemies fight and lose on their soil…………Who like cleaning up after the party?

I expect the US to continue making the world a more dangerous place actually at least until such time as they finally go tits up trying to conquer it.

Perhaps, but will that be in a generation or 200 years? And who will replace them? China?

I'm afraid this ship's sails were heisted by the winds of globalization and is already just a distant blip on the horizon.

Though we likely disagree on the degree of “globalization” that effects Canada, in both negative and positive ways, I agree that a butterfly flapping it’s wings on the other side of the planet will create a breeze felt in Canada………Hence the reasoning behind having a military with the ability to project power beyond our shores.

I don't buy the narrative that the ridiculous sums of money our military is burning through or needs is due to political largess. I think it's just so freakin' expensive it's completely unsustainable. It's no wonder the government feels it needs to mislead and delude us into believing otherwise.

Well it does, look at any major military purchase that requires industrial offsets etc……Cleary a ship that costs ~2 billion to produce in Canada, could be acquired from a South Korean or Spanish yard for a fraction of the cost…….More pointedly, the other areas are the massively bloated bureaucracy, both military and civilian found within NDHQ and the glut of military bases we operate across Canada, without any pain (other than political) we could close at least 1/3rd…..

[waldo]

in any case, the real focus seems to be on MacKay lying about the incremental cost... the $100,000,000 cost for dropping bombs on Libya... that, we can presume, according to DND, includes the $25,000,000 cost for the bombs themselves, hey?

Has their been clear evidence that he lied on the costs?

what? Are you lobbying for MacKay's incompetence instead?

in any case, per the thread title, per the DND itself, we can say, yes! Peter MacKay is a liar.

Military brass says MacKay knew full estimated cost of Libya mission

Already under fire over the cost of the F-35 fighter, Defence Minister Peter MacKay found himself fighting a second front Friday following confirmation he knew the Libya mission would cost tens of millions more than he told Canadians.

"He knew the estimates, for sure," Maj.-Gen. Jon Vance said. "In fact, he presents the estimates to cabinet. So yes, the minister would have known what the all-up estimated costs of the mission could be."

[waldo]

Hence the reasoning behind having a military with the ability to project power beyond our shores.

is that what you see in bombing Libya? Canada... "projecting power beyond our shores"? Really?

[Jack Weber]

is that what you see in bombing Libya? Canada... "projecting power beyond our shores"? Really?

I'll bet it's an affirmative for the authoritarian...erm...conservative types....

[Derek L]

what? Are you lobbying for MacKay's incompetence instead?

Per the linked article:

Military brass says MacKay knew full estimated cost of Libya mission

Vance, speaking at a hastily-arranged news conference at National Defence Headquarters on Friday afternoon, said the military had told MacKay before his interview that the incremental costs for the Libya mission were expected to top $106 million.

"We're pretty proud of them because they were very accurate," Vance added regarding the Defence Department's estimate.

In the House of Commons on Friday, MacKay said he was simply stating what the cost of the mission had been as of mid-October, and that extra costs were incurred as equipment and personnel returned home from the mission.

So who do you believe? The military or MND? One side is clearly on the wrong side of right…….Who do you trust?

Cause and effect?

The federal government has quietly announced a major shakeup at National Defence, a move that will largely return the military to its pre-Afghan combat mission structure, and possibly shed thousands of jobs.

The consolidation will result in a 25 per cent reduction in the size of defence command-and-control overhead — something described as a necessity in a review report by last year by the former head of the army, retired lieutenant-general Andrew Leslie.

Precisely how many job losses or retirements that will mean is unclear.

Leslie's report painted a picture of a military fat with administration and private contracting support.

[Derek L]

is that what you see in bombing Libya? Canada... "projecting power beyond our shores"? Really?

That was clearly the case…….Nation Building is passé ,Gunboat diplomacy is in vogue again…

[bleeding heart]

Perhaps, and I tend to agree that much of the movie is phoney, but it did wonders for naval recruitment……..

So I've heard. But then, I don't think anyone is arguing that military propaganda doesn't work.

Even when it has a (probably unintentional) homosexual subtext.

Or maybe that subtext actually helped recruitment!

Edited by bleeding heart, 13 May 2012 - 03:01 AM.

[bleeding heart]

As I’ve said earlier (to Waldo?) “Freedom isn’t Free”………Or better put, do we expect another nation (United States) to further subsidize our national defence and further our interests abroad? At what point are we no longer a sovereign nation?

I make no arguments against military spending generally (I agree these matters should be hotly debated, and it's good to see it happen).

That doesn't change the charge of statism; we can argue whether the statism is justified and necessary; we can't argue that conservatives are every bit as statist as liberals (despite the protestations) because it's a plain, and in fact uncontroversial, truth.

Which makes many of the "big government" arguments rather moot. The political Right, just like the Left (and of course the self-described "Centre" who pretend they're above all this) love big government.

Edited by bleeding heart, 13 May 2012 - 03:09 AM.

[Tilter]

Don’t lose your faith…….LOL…….I’m sure these new scathing numbers are sunk costs that we’d have paid anyway……..Let’s see……..An average of 500-600 personal deployed for just under 8 months, say each non commissioned member, using a conservative estimate, makes ~$5000 a month and each officer about ~$7000 a month……….Let’s estimate between the ships crew and air force component there’s ~50 officers and 500 non commissioned members…..So that leaves us:

5000 x 7.5 x 500 = S 18750000

7000 x 7.5 x 50 = $ 2625000

There’s 21+ million, without counting benefits, danger pay, and any supporting personal back in Canada…….Now do these “new figures” also include a portion of the operating costs of the deployed unit’s home bases? Base personal? I’d truly love to see a breakdown of both the “old” and “new” costs…..

You have a good point here and if the Libyan situation is clarified (doubtful) by the UN action the cost was minimal to Canada. Unfortunately, there is no such thing as clarification of the Middle East as NONE of them are about to support any treaty signed by anyone, not even them self so any hope for peace in the Arab world is a fantasy. The next "Arab Spring" will happen in Saudi Arabia and the blood flow there will make the rest of the Arab conflicts look like kindergarten red sidewalk chalk.

[Derek L]

So I've heard. But then, I don't think anyone is arguing that military propaganda doesn't work.

Even when it has a (probably unintentional) homosexual subtext.

Or maybe that subtext actually helped recruitment!

I guess this didn't do the trick: