Skip navigation

 Login or Register | Member Centre

Harper pledges long-term renewal of Canadian Forces

BRODIE FENLON

Globe and Mail Update and Canadian Press

Latest comment posted at 12:37 PM EDT 12/05/08

Prime Minister announces 'Canada First Defence Strategy' with promises of long-term stable funding, new equipment and the recruitment of new troops and reservists ...Read the full article

This conversation is closed

  1. Sev Scott from Calgaristan, Canada writes: Good on ya PM! We have been offloading our own defence to the Yanks over the last few years (Thanks Jean) and it is time we look to a modern force. I wish him luck as with most government organizations, the inertia will be profound.
  2. Shawn Bull from Canada writes: The military has been underfunded by all governments since Trudeau dismantled it. This Harper government is the first to reverse the damage caused by years of neglect.

    Canada is a very large country that needs a well equipped military for domestic and foriegn needs. I like this straegy put forward by the Harper Conservatives.

    Enrollment into the military is at an all time high since WWII, Canada's reputation as a country that helps is being rebuilt and our ability to protect Northern terretories is improved.
  3. David C from a constant traveler from, Canada writes: Military buildup sank the economy of the USSR and is currently producing the highest deficit spending ever recorded in the USA. What are we achieving by committing to long term spending here in Canada? Are we preparing to protect our arctic sovereignty? Will the spending be controlled and measured? Will it create jobs in CANADA? Or are we just moving down a path of military buildup without clear direction in order to bolster the national opinion of Canada on the world stage? These are questions that I would like to see answered... Not just a blanket statement of long term spending for spending's sake..
  4. Stan L from Canada writes: Of course he will do this.....now I understand Flaherty's baffling and seemingly idiotic comments about the greatness of the Canadian economy.....LOL.
  5. Ian Fleming from Canada writes: Our reserves will be the best 'come and go as you feel like it, no job security, works really well if you dont have a real job' reserve forces anywhere in the world.
  6. David C from a constant traveler from, Canada writes: Shawn Bull, do you by chance work for the CPC? Mighty big Conservative horn you play out here in the G&M blogs..
  7. Joe Canada from Kingston, Canada writes: I'm always interested in announcements that attempt to strengthen Canada's military abilities and sovereignty but David C. is right....more info needed before I reserve judgment.
  8. Greg Out West from Canada writes: I'd rather see government money going into improving our military instead of the auto sector which is never going to compete with factories in china and india.
    Also when I see how much money the auto sector is looking for and how many jobs they're trying to save, wouldn't it be better to just divide the money up and give each workers job you're trying to save about a half million ?

    Show me the money.
  9. Love my Country Expect More From My GOVERNMENT from TO, Canada writes: Blah Blah Blah, we all know about Harpers pledges.
  10. D K from Canada writes: Whatever the role of our military, no matter how big or how small a force we choose to have, they should ALWAYS have first rate equipment. Alas this is not the case; what do you expect when the government of the day makes the purchases.
  11. Jeff Canadian from Toronto, Canada writes: ahh yes. Classic political strategy here. Its too bad its a plan steeped in the cold war era, which, sorry old Cons, is over. The modern world, one that Harper seems intent on ignoring and reversing, is one of diplomacy and interaction, not gun and bombs. But then again, when was the last time Harper talked his way out of of something without the use of bully force? Montebello anyone?
  12. Shawn Bull from Canada writes: David C from a constant traveler from, Canada writes: Shawn Bull, do you by chance work for the CPC? Mighty big Conservative horn you play out here in the G&M blogs..
    --------------------------------------
    Yes, I have been told that. ....I still like this military strategy for Canada though.
  13. Yvonne Wackernagel from Woodville, Canada writes: 'David C from a constant traveler from, Canada writes: Military buildup sank the economy of the USSR and is currently producing the highest deficit spending ever recorded in the USA'

    I agree, but we have to be ready to help the Americans and, of course, hockey is Harper's first interest which tells a lot. When you think of all the domestic needs, it makes you wonder why we are spending billions on the millitary at this time, particularly when Canada's most 'prolific' province is going in recession. Then think of the 500 billion debt which the U.S. has incurred by building up its military for the Iraq war based on a big lie. Only the people can stop Harper, but we must wait for all the fraud to be examined or to have the investigations started. Maybe, this is just another strategy being thrown to the wind to see what support it might have.
  14. Quinn Barreth from Canada writes: Do you mean the number of pledges that he keeps (despite 'intellectual' disagreements by policy wonks) versus what other gov'ts promised and did not deliver?

    David C., you need to give the numbers a look-see before you start comparing Canada's GDP military spending to USSR or USA. That's just a dishonest comment.
  15. Shawn Bull from Canada writes: Jeff Canadian from Toronto: The modern world, one that Harper seems intent on ignoring and reversing, is one of diplomacy and interaction, not gun and bombs.
    -----------------------------------
    You must have been out of town on 9/11/01.
  16. Tim Cares from Canada writes: Dude, you won't be around long enough.
  17. Stan L from Canada writes: Hand firmly placed over his heart....music swells, Harper with a tear in his eye promises to never let the troops down.....the wind machine blows softly and the Canadian flag gently flutters in the wind behind him......'Stand up for Canada' he signs off, choking back the tears......LOL

    What happened to the stuff you prmoised them in the first place?......Oh delays you say? Cost overruns to the Conservative preferred O'Conner vendors?.....Stand up for Canada indeed!!!!
  18. Quinn Barreth from Canada writes: Jeff Canadian from Toronto, Canada writes: ahh yes. Classic political strategy here. Its too bad its a plan steeped in the cold war era, which, sorry old Cons, is over. The modern world, one that Harper seems intent on ignoring and reversing, is one of diplomacy and interaction, not gun and bombs. But then again, when was the last time Harper talked his way out of of something without the use of bully force? Montebello anyone?

    Is this the modern world that ships its ideological arguments at home to other countries on hijacked airplanes or strapped as bombs on human beings? Seems to me life is more dangerous now and less diplomatic than ever (on an international stage).

    BTW my last comment was meant as a response to
    Love my Country Expect More From My GOVERNMENT from TO
  19. Proud to Be Canadian from Toronto, Canada writes: Shawn Bull from Canada writes: The military has been underfunded by all governments since Trudeau dismantled it.

    Looks like you misspelled MULRONEY..... most of the equipment the Forces have was purchased buy the Liberals .. but being a CPC hack you would not know that ..

    Anyway .. I smell Billions more of single source non-compete contracts .. The Kick Backs will be rolling in ...

    They don't call him Bribe Minister Harper for nothing .
  20. Martyn Whitt from toronto, Canada writes: Jeff Canadian from Toronto, Canada writes: ahh yes. Classic political strategy here. Its too bad its a plan steeped in the cold war era, which, sorry old Cons, is over. The modern world, one that Harper seems intent on ignoring and reversing, is one of diplomacy and interaction, not gun and bombs.

    Too bad most of the world isn't playing by your rules. A country that can't defend it's borders is living on borrowed time.
  21. Ricky for a Centrist Canada from Canada writes:
    I guess we know why the wait times guarantee was never followed through on.

    BTW - Trudeau spent more on the military than his conservative counterparts. Even the CPC's propaganda paper ran that one:

    http://www.nationalpost.com/news/story.html?id=141640

    I do not think there are any Canadians who don't want a military, or a strong one - what they oppose is a questionable use of resources on highly questionable missions that may be doing more harm than good.
  22. Quinn Barreth from Canada writes: Don Jenkins from Canada writes
    Remember the biggest difference between Hitler and Harper is that Hilter had a military state. We will soon.

    Thanks for elevating the level of class of the debate Don.
  23. Mark Shore from Ottawa, Canada writes: Hard to argue with a Canada First policy. So Harper will be bringing back our ships from the Persian Gulf and using them off Canada's Pacific, Atlantic and Arctic Ocean coasts? And recalling the army from Afghanistan now that their costly training exercise is done?
  24. Randal Oulton from Canada writes: >> David C from a constant traveler from, Canada writes: Military buildup sank the economy of the USSR...

    Yes, well, increasing strength by 5,000 from 65k to 70k hardly I think counts as military buildup in anyone's books. I doubt it would even make the Belgians quake.
  25. Johnny Canuck from Canada writes: A strong military is the backbone of any democracy. It provides citizens with disaster relief, military aid for UN & Nato missions, fisheries and oceans patrols and excellent skills training for Canadian youth among many other things. I applaud the Governments decsision.
  26. Craig Scott from Republic of Newfoundland, Canada writes: David C from a constant traveler from, Canada writes: Military buildup sank the economy of the USSR and is currently producing the highest deficit spending ever recorded in the USA...

    ----------

    We are far from the US and the USSR. I don't believe we have huge arsenals of Nuclear weapons we are developing.

    The increase of 1.2-2 percent a year is reasonable.

    Canada has become a laughing stock over the past 15 years where our military is concerned Most of the 'Peace Keeping ' missions we have been involved in have been 1 soldier here, 2 soldiers and a diplomat there' and the Liberals and NDP try and promote that as the Canadian way.

    This is good news for Canada and the world, we will be able to help other countries that need out help in the future and also our own citizens.
  27. Shawn Bull from Canada writes: Proud to Be Canadian from Toronto: When Trudeau came into power the Canadian military had a Canadian Air Force, Army and Navy. Trudeau grouped then all together as the Canadian Military, dismantled the recruiting methods and began the downfall of the Canadian military. Enrollment in the military after these Trudeau changes plummeted immediately and alot of our lifetime military brains walked away from the military after these Trudeau changes.

    Mulroney continued underfunding the military, followed by Chretien. Now Harper is spending the resources needed to repair 30 years of damage.

    Sorry to correct your incorrect post Proud Canadian.
  28. Ned Chiwalski from Oilberta, Canada writes: Good call Mr. Harper! It's about time we start rebuilding and repairing our armed forces after the years of liberal neglect. Collapse the useless long gun registry and there's a funding start...
  29. David C from a constant traveler from, Canada writes: Quinn Barreth from Canada writes: 'David C., you need to give the numbers a look-see before you start comparing Canada's GDP military spending to USSR or USA. That's just a dishonest comment.'

    thanks Quinn. That was the point of my post, Harper has not given any numbers. I reserve judgement until I see exactly how he intends to spend the money from our national Coffers. Love those LARGE planes we purchased from Boeing... 4 of em, how much did we spend? A couple of billion? Perhaps we needed them, but all of them? Are we on a similar spending spree? How are they useful for our domestic transport needs? I need more information instead of nationalist rhetoric in order to form my opinion.

    Thanks for calling me dishonest. I am honest in my opinion of both our spending in Canada on the military and my thoughts on what is happening globally.
  30. matthew parsons from Canada writes: On the military, or bailing Air Canada out again? Or maybe we can give more to Quebec and all the other groups with their hands out expecting a free ride. Ah, the Canadian way of getting everything for doing nothing sems to be the favoured option for most of the posters here. Must be hard to type with one hand always out demanding special treatment for every crybaby out there.
  31. Opinion in Toronto from Toronto, Canada writes: Good for Harper. We have entered a new era, with a resurgent China and North Korea to our west and renewed interest by a number of states in our northern territories.
  32. Hans Ulster from From the Canadian Oilpatch, Canada writes: Jeff Canadian from Toronto, Canada writes: ahh yes. Classic political strategy here. Its too bad its a plan steeped in the cold war era, which, sorry old Cons, is over. The modern world, one that Harper seems intent on ignoring and reversing, is one of diplomacy and interaction, not gun and bombs.

    --------------

    Nonsense. In today's world, a capable and versatile military is more important than ever. Your views might get you a pat on the back in Multicutural Theories 101, but in the real world that is pure nonsense.

    Last time I checked, the genocide was still ongoing in the Sudan (despite a lot of talk) and Iran is still developing nukes (despite a lot of talk). And those are just two examples of dozens.

    Oh, I see you are from Toronto. That explains a lot.
  33. Martyn Whitt from toronto, Canada writes: Don Jenkins, thanks for the laughs, I can see how you compare a man who's lacking in charms and rather dull to a genocidal maniac who was responsible for the deaths of tens of millions of people. Do words have meaning in your world?
  34. Jeff Canadian from Toronto, Canada writes: Shawn Bull from Canada writes: ----------------------------------
    You must have been out of town on 9/11/01.

    Quinn Barreth from Canada writes: Is this the modern world that ships its ideological arguments at home to other countries on hijacked airplanes or strapped as bombs on human beings? Seems to me life is more dangerous now and less diplomatic than ever (on an international stage).

    You both raise the same, valid argument. But these are the terrorists who the US has been fighting for 6 years in Iraq, using military strategy on a gorilla force. All the proof you need to see that a big strong military doesn't work against this enemy is in the papers, TV and in the soldiers letters and 'illegal' photos and videos they post online themselves.

    I agree, 9/11 changed things, but the biggest change that our so called leaders have failed to recognize is that conventional warfare 'state vs. state' isn't happening anymore. Beef up the military, fine, but to build a military to fight the fights of today, not the cold wars of yesteryear.
  35. Michael Sharp from Victoria, Canada writes:

    Under the Liberals, Canada's military was ranked 130th out of 160 countries.

    The Liberals believed in...

    'In order to keep the war, prepare for peace.'

    Liberals are dangerous.
  36. Prairie Boy from Canada writes: Proud to be .. The Iltis jeep, built by Bombardier and useless. That is what the forces got. My uncle was in the RCAF, when he was close to retirement they sent him from coast to coast to coast trying to get him to take early retirement. Every year he was moved. The marriage didn't make it but he did.
  37. Shawn Bull from Canada writes: Jeff Canadian from Toronto, Canada writes:You both raise the same, valid argument. But these are the terrorists who the US has been fighting for 6 years in Iraq, using military strategy on a gorilla force. All the proof you need to see that a big strong military doesn't work against this enemy is in the papers, TV and in the soldiers letters and 'illegal' photos and videos they post online themselves.
    --------------------------------
    I don't agree that the US method of taking it to where the terrorists are and demantling their funding is not working.

    Why has there not been a single terrorist attack (not even a terrorists cutting a fart) in the US in almost 7 years. The US is a free society that allows people to enter and move around the US without close supervision. Why did the terrorists not follow up the most successful terrorist attack of all time? Are they able to?
  38. Rob Swanson from in a state of grace, Canada writes: Lets see. I have been reading defense white, red, blue and purple papers in place since the late 80's when I joined the service. And NOT A SINGLE ONE was worth the paper it was printed on, and NONE were EVER acted on. I'll believe this AFTER I see it. Long term military/defense planning is the singular most consistant failure of National governments since the 60's. More cannon fodder is not needed, but politico's getting an education is. Mr. Harper, I implore you to make this more than points against the hapless libs, and useless nd's.
  39. J A from Canada writes: Craig Scott from Newfoundland, good post. If you check out the United Nations web site, Canada ranks 80th in peace keeping. We don't have the forces or equipment to deploy on UN missions.
  40. Hans Ulster from From the Canadian Oilpatch, Canada writes: Jeff Canadian from Toronto, Canada writes: Shawn Bull from Canada writes:I agree, 9/11 changed things, but the biggest change that our so called leaders have failed to recognize is that conventional warfare 'state vs. state' isn't happening anymore. Beef up the military, fine, but to build a military to fight the fights of today, not the cold wars of yesteryear.

    -------------

    While I agree that our forces must be prepared to wage unconventional warfare, the idea that state versus state warfare isn't happening anymore is preposterous. I guess you missed the story a few days ago about China having developed a secret underground nuclear submarine base, or the stories about Iran telling the 6 powers to sod off?

    I shake my head sometimes at the ignorance on these boards.
  41. Strong Bad from Canada writes: Don Jenkins, you must be the guy that came up with that 'soldiers in our streets' ad the Liberals ran in the last election.

    Get a grip on reality.
  42. jack sprat from Canada writes: OMG, the flag wavers are out again to defend Stephen Chavez. First, it will be hard to have a military when we have no health care or education for our people.

    Second, does anyone really think we will EVER be able to defend our borders? Wake up people.

    Third, expenses will rise even further for equipment as Chavez-harper does not support companies like MDA (read Lost in Space in ROB).

    30 billion over 20 years? as harper has shown, any commitment beyond his term is bogus (harper has cancelled oodes of programs and commitments made by previous Con and lib governments), so this is just more patronizing fluff and feel good rhetoric for his electoral base.

    yes, we need a strong military but a Pm with integrity would be better.
  43. Hans Ulster from From the Canadian Oilpatch, Canada writes: Meanwhile, the US Navy positions three more vessels off the coast of Myanmar.
  44. M Poland from Calgary, Canada writes: This is really good news, in that our PM [thank God] is looking out for our nation's future security. The earlier poster was right about living on borrowed time if we cannot defend our borders. David C., I am quite sure that you are a traveller [in the political sense] You really should hold your fire until you have something profound to say [what possible consideration would we have to use military aircraft for 'domestic transport needs'?] Turnip. Yvonne, has it occurred to you that maybe some of these military contracts will employ thousands of Ontarians? Just as contracts did in the past. Quin, the Cold War may be over [check with Vladimir Putin first, though] but I will remind you that Osama bin Laden declared war on Canada over ten years ago in his newspaper-published manifesto calling re-establish the Caliphate and extend its purview across all of Christendom. Sometimes one's enemies choose one; whether or not one chooses them as an enemy.
  45. Quinn Barreth from Canada writes: Jeff Canadian from Toronto, Canada writes:
    I agree, 9/11 changed things, but the biggest change that our so called leaders have failed to recognize is that conventional warfare 'state vs. state' isn't happening anymore. Beef up the military, fine, but to build a military to fight the fights of today, not the cold wars of yesteryear.

    Our problem as a democracy and non-ideological movement (though based on sheep-like following of the intellectuals in this country makes this debatable) is that we cannot force our citizens to fight the same way. So our option is conventional forces or increased paramedics to clean up the carnage of the attacks waged on us.

    I don't think it is the intent of this announcement to join 'the war on terror' by invading someone else, but simply focus on the military needs of Canada and its security. Do you disagree?
  46. Hans Ulster from From the Canadian Oilpatch, Canada writes: jack sprat from Canada writes: OMG, the flag wavers are out again to defend Stephen Chavez. First, it will be hard to have a military when we have no health care or education for our people.

    ------------

    You lost me after that brilliantly written opening statement. Perhaps you should go back to class. LOL.
  47. diane marie from calgary, Canada writes: All that 'damage' we suffered from underspending on the military. Would anyone like to point to evidence of it? We all recognize the need to protect our own borders and to have a military capable of civil support, but where many of us differ is in the need to support American geopolitical ambitions under the guise of NATO. If Mr. Harper is promising 'Canada First', he might like to tell us all how we can spent millions on drug lord mansions in Afghanistan but can't afford to fix up our own heritage assets. It seems that we've gone from accusations of taking a defense 'free ride' to being, not the so-called Northern European welfare state of Mr. Harper's derision, but a state providing welfare to the American MIC.
  48. Bobby Dy from Canada writes: What a sham: 1-2 percent per year increases. That will almost certainly be below the rate of inflation. This is how you fool people, you state cumulative budget totals over multiple years. Those who think in terms of family budgets are overwhelmed by the numbers and think that you are making a major commitment. Nothing of the sort is happening.
  49. jack sprat from Canada writes: Harper Chavez also recently applied to have Canada approved as a country able to enrich uranium.

    Based on his comments are nukes in the offing too? Why make such an application with annoucing it publicly?

    you can't trust harper Chavez, income trusts showed that first with the latest being the debacle of MDA and many in between.

    Spin, hype, rhetoric and optics. undeniable truth.
  50. Michael Sharp from Victoria, Canada writes:

    You know why Martin didn't send troops to Iraq?
    Not out of some enlightened world view but because we didn't have any to send.
    From CTV 2005:

    'But in October 2004, Martin expressed his hesitance to commit any Canadian troops to Iraq.
    'There's a limit to our resources,' Martin said at the time.
    'And that's why I'm putting the focus right now on Afghanistan, on Haiti.
    'Whatever it is that we do, I really want to see us do it in an area that makes a difference,' Martin said.'

    There is most definitely a limit to your resources when you don't fund them properly.

    You can be damned good and sure that the Canadian forces will NOT be voting LPC.
    Along with the West and Quebec.
  51. diane marie from calgary, Canada writes: Hans:-- About as brilliant as your telling fellow posters about a 'secret' sub base in China. Now, just how secret was it again?
  52. John Silverman from Canada writes: Getting new equipment and such is one thing, fine I'm ok with that - assuming this can even be trusted, but what concerns me is what others touched on.

    The conflicts of the new era are not big state vs. state wars. The US has the best military in the world and yet 9/11 happened didn't it? How did their big military prevent that? It didn't.

    A shift in focus to border security, anti-terrorism, etc. would seem more effective overall.

    Also there is a huge red flag concern here with all this that the cons will try to suck us into another winless, unethical war against someone who doesn't even need to be attacked. E.g., Iraq was a horrible blunder.

    Shawn - The US attacking Iraq has made the US LESS safe, not more. So I think you lose this argument.
  53. Quinn Barreth from Canada writes: diane marie from calgary, Canada writes: All that 'damage' we suffered from underspending on the military. Would anyone like to point to evidence of it?

    Not an exact match to what you are talking about, but our many years of navel-gazing left us with a security system that easily let in terrorists that blew up Air-India.

    My thing is, the military is a bell-weather of how well we are engaging on an international level as a country. For many, many years we have not and I like the idea that we are now. If even simply to be available to help in UN and NATO type operations. Better yet though to protect our natural resources from all comers (like marine reserves in the north and east coasts, territorial sovereignty, etc.).
  54. Jeff Canadian from Toronto, Canada writes: Shawn Bull from Canada writes: Why has there not been a single terrorist attack (not even a terrorists cutting a fart) in the US in almost 7 years. The US is a free society that allows people to enter and move around the US without close supervision.....

    That is true; in the domestic arena. To play devils advocate though... Within their boarders its the internal security agencies (CIA, FBI, HomeLand, etc..) that have done all the plot busting. The military has only thrown fuel on the fire across the pond and is creating another generation of terrorists, a HUGE generation. So maybe the military will be needed to fight them within their boarders in another 10-15 years.

    Hans Ulster from From the Canadian Oilpatch, Canada writes: While I agree that our forces must be prepared to wage unconventional warfare, the idea that state versus state warfare isn't happening anymore is preposterous. I guess you missed the story a few days ago about China having developed a secret underground nuclear submarine base, or the stories about Iran telling the 6 powers to sod off?

    Hans, do you believe everything you read? And then talk about ignorance? How mighty of you. Oh, I see your from the oilpatch, that explains a lot.

    In response, Iran? really, people are still listening to their saber rattling? This is a state that has a leader who is a puppet for the Ayatollahs, who are well aware of mutually assured destruction. And China, this is a state that leaks out propaganda like a new Canadian Forces sub bought from the British! They have to keep up a psudo-secretive advanced military image just so they can make to occasional hallow threat. Again, another state that is well aware of MAD.
  55. Brad Fgroupthinkn from Canada writes: Should Read;
    HARPER PLEDGES CDN TROOP TO AFGANISTAN INDEFINATELY;
    ALL PARTY LEADERS AGREE SAYING 'WE DON'T NEED TO TAKE THIS TO THE PEOPLE' HIGH FIVES ALL AROUND
    War Freaks
  56. jack sprat from Canada writes: Bobby Dy - Don't forget that its only 1 - 2 percent and way outside of his term.

    'Stand up for canada', canadas new government, canada First

    What a bunch of bunk. How much polling was done to pick this name? As I stated go to ROB page and read Lost in Space....then tell me how harper puts Canada First.

    The facts in that story show the real Steve Harper.
  57. Alan Burke from climatechange.dynalias.com in Ottawa, Canada writes: There are some of us who have put our lives on the line for the rest of you.

    Our world is going to get more dangerous in the next few decades, not less.

    Please take those facts into consideration while you spout your political bias. If you do not care to protect the future of yourself and your children then please take your flames elsewhere.

    Would you rather be living in Burma right now?
  58. Hans Ulster from From the Canadian Oilpatch, Canada writes: diane marie from calgary, Canada writes: Hans:-- About as brilliant as your telling fellow posters about a 'secret' sub base in China. Now, just how secret was it again?

    -------------

    LOL. Well, it was secret up until a few days ago. LOL.

    http://www.upi.com/NewsTrack/TopNews/2008/05/01/reportchinahassecretnuclearsub_base/7175/
  59. The Lighthorseman from Canada writes: 30B over 20 years or 1.5B a year out of a 220B dollar plus budget - well, there goes the nation.

    For all of you Liberal hacks wailing here - it was Paul Martin who started the current defense spending levels - 13.5B approved by his cabinet - but his government was defeated before this could happen. Harper inherited this and increased it as well - as promised.

    Perhaps if an election is called and Dion wins and re-announces this it will taste better!??!
  60. John Silverman from Canada writes: 'Shawn Bull from Canada writes: I don't agree that the US method of taking it to where the terrorists are and demantling their funding is not working.

    Why has there not been a single terrorist attack (not even a terrorists cutting a fart) in the US in almost 7 years. The US is a free society that allows people to enter and move around the US without close supervision. Why did the terrorists not follow up the most successful terrorist attack of all time? Are they able to? '

    I assume this is a joke, as not even a 2-year old would say that b/c of attacking Iraq that is why there hasn't been another 9/11. That's ridiculous.

    By that logic I could argue just as validly that having a Republican in office causes terrorist attacks, since the attack happened when Bush was in office.

    Also there have been MANY subsequent terrorist attempts on the US. But they were defeated - BUT NOT BY THE MILITARY. The US military is not involved in stopping terrorist attacks. Beefing up our military will not, in any way, protect us from terrorists. At best it helps us to retaliate, but I'd rather focus on stopping attacks in the first place.
  61. Craig Cooper from toronto, writes: It's about time somebody did something!!!!!
  62. mike sty - from Canada writes: Much of the Conservative strategy has been announced before.

    The plan also emphasizes the government's commitment to Arctic sovereignty, highlighting the 2008 budget allocations for a new polar class icebreaker
    -----------------------------

    Icebreaker???????????????

    Stephen Harper promised icebreaker...............

    instead we got slushbreakers.

    Just another broken promise on a growing list of broken promises.

    Can We Really Trust Aliar?????
  63. Hans Ulster from From the Canadian Oilpatch, Canada writes: John Silverman from Canada writes: 'Shawn Bull from Canada writes: I don't agree that the US method of taking it to where the terrorists are and demantling their funding is not working.

    Why has there not been a single terrorist attack (not even a terrorists cutting a fart) in the US in almost 7 years. The US is a free society that allows people to enter and move around the US without close supervision. Why did the terrorists not follow up the most successful terrorist attack of all time? Are they able to? '

    I assume this is a joke, as not even a 2-year old would say that b/c of attacking Iraq that is why there hasn't been another 9/11. That's ridiculous.

    -------------

    Perhaps. But Iraq HAS served as a beautiful venus flytrap into which many foreign jihadis enter but do not leave. And, of course, Iran is now surrounded.
  64. Michael Sharp from Victoria, Canada writes:

    Between the first and second world war in Britain there were a group of WW1 vets called the Firsters.
    They made a very strong argument for the dismantling of the British war machine and they should know, they were WW1 vets, of course. They had seen the horrors of total war, firsthand.

    Meanwhile across the Channel, another country took the opposite tack and built up their war machine.

    Anybody remember how that worked out for the Brits?
    Anybody remember Neville and 'peace in our time'?

    Anybody ever read Santanya?

    THOSE THAT IGNORE THE LESSONS OF THE PAST ARE DOOMED TO REPEAT THEM.

    In order to keep the peace, prepare for war.

    Liberals are dangerous.
  65. The Business from Canada writes: Jeff Canadian

    Any useful international affairs strategy will incorporate tactical diplomacy and interaction. This is about as far from 'new' as you can possibly get. Any useful international affairs strategy will also incorporate the ability to defend Canadian interests (from borders to disaster relief) and international interests (defending Afghanis from the predations of the Taliban). This is not new, either.

    All we're seeing here is a clear statement that Canada will be more capable of playing a role at the 'sharper end of the stick' than it does now. That simply does not preclude an active role in diplomacy.

    Frankly, if we prize the rights and freedoms of Canadian society we ought -- at some level -- be prepared to be in the vanguard of supporting those rights and freedoms abroad. And that does means an Arctic presence, being able to ship our own disaster relief people and equipment aboard our own aircraft, and joining other liberal democracies in defending oppressed people (Afghanistan and, ideally, Darfur).
  66. Older'n Dirt from Belleville, Canada writes: Without dedicated men and women, who are prepared to serve our country, all the equipment in the world will be of little use. A simple fact is that every serviceman and women will have their pensions clawed back the day they start receiving CPP. Is this any way to treat our veterans and who would want to join an organization that requires you to work 24/7 anywhere in the world they send you for 6 months to a year on many occassions over a career, and which places terrible stresses on military families and service people alike. Morethan good luck will be needed to recruit and retain with treatment like that. Check out the following: www.petitiononline.com/vets8
  67. Michael Sharp from Victoria, Canada writes:

    Hans Ulster from From the Canadian Oilpatch...

    Excellent analysis.

    The Hotel Iraq.

    You can check out but you can never leave.
    Come for the view, stay for the jihad.
  68. Jeff Canadian from Toronto, Canada writes: Quinn Barreth from Canada writes: Our problem as a democracy and non-ideological movement (though based on sheep-like following of the intellectuals in this country makes this debatable) is that we cannot force our citizens to fight the same way. So our option is conventional forces or increased paramedics to clean up the carnage of the attacks waged on us.

    I don't think it is the intent of this announcement to join 'the war on terror' by invading someone else, but simply focus on the military needs of Canada and its security. Do you disagree?
    -
    Very true. While I do agree that focusing on the domestic military needs of security and the well being of Canadians in distress can only be a good thing, I have reservations about how far Harper will go. With so much spending going out (not to make this a budget priorities debate) is it valuable to build more and more regiments to train and wait for the next domestic disaster (Quebec Ice Storm, NB Flooding, Toronto's Snow, I jest) or does Harper now define where it will go? Ie: 12 DART teams? another squad of JTF2? All Peacekeepers? This is a military I can fully support.

    But with Harper, the devil is in the details.
  69. Honesty is the best Policy from Canada writes:
    Just another hot air re-announcement and promises this regime won't be around for.
  70. Craig Cooper from toronto, writes: When Trudeau took power we had TWO aircraft carriers.

    Now we are a joke.

    And yet the troops themselves are still top notch. They deserve better.
  71. Alan Burke from climatechange.dynalias.com in Ottawa, Canada writes: Do you mean, 'mike sty' when you referred to 'Aliar' as it being 'Allaire', as in the Canadian General who showed a conscience? Who was defeated by indecision in the face of atrocities, wanting to avoid catastrophe?

    Is that the status quo which you'd like to maintain?
  72. Michael Sharp from Victoria, Canada writes:

    'Honesty is the best Policy from Canada writes:
    Just another hot air re-announcement and promises this regime won't be around for.'

    You wish.

    The West will not vote LPC.
    Quebec will not vote LPC.
    The CF will most definitely not vote LPC.

    The GTA might vote LPC.
    That and 16 cents will get you a Timbit.
  73. Joe Gopher from Canada writes: Yvonne Wackernagel from Woodville, Canada writes:
    I agree, but we have to be ready to help the Americans and, of course, hockey is Harper's first interest which tells a lot.
    -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Damn straight!
    Harper's interest in hockey does tell a lot.
    You got that right.
    Fair Dinkum.
    You certainly hit the nail on the head with that one.
    Yeah Baby!

    Uhhhhhh,
    Emmmmmm?
    Er, what does it tell us again?
    I forgot in all the excitement.
  74. Stan L from Canada writes: Honesty is the best Policy from Canada writes:
    Just another hot air re-announcement and promises this regime won't be around for.

    No kidding, this is not NEW news, this is campaign rhetoric derived from the budget.....to make this resonate even more with the public, he actually has sent out Flaherty to tell Ontarians today how the economy is in great shape and talk about all the things that the Canadian economy can't control like the dolllar etc.....all so we think this spending STILL makes sense given the economic conditions right now.......let me tell you those defense contractors must be SLEEPING in the PMO these days.......
  75. Bobby Dy from Canada writes: As I said before, this is NOT a commitment to the military. It is a trivial amount of funding and nowhere near what the Senate Committee has been calling for in terms of investment. Once again, Harper plays Canadians for fools and judging by the accolades that he has received on this comment board, there are no shortage of fools who are easily deceived by large numbers. Apparently, basic math skills are lacking in this country. We can debate the value of investing in the military but if you are among those who strongly supports the military, you should be outraged that Harper has made a commitment that will actually lead to the deterioration of inflation-adjusted funding over the 20 year term while daring to make claims about the importance of the military.
  76. M. Brockington from Vancouver, Canada writes:
    '4.) Supremacy of the Military'

    This is a familiar gambit. Spending more on the military leaves less for everything else. Combine with large cuts to government revenue (i.e. GST cut) and the federal government becomes fiscally impotent.

    As opposed to the neo-cons of the south, who only pay lip service to the idea of small government, Harper is actually committed to reducing the federal government to the size of something he can drown in a bathtub. Not something most Canadians would support of course, so he needs to come up with these sorts of workarounds.

    Sure, Trudeau's been dead quite awhile, but somehow this whole Harper regime feels like Alberta getting payback for the National Energy Program. When you think about it, electing Harper is kind of like electing Gilles Duceppe PM.
  77. Honesty is the best Policy from Canada writes:
    Steve stuck in polls and casting for more support.
  78. Alpha Sigma from Canada writes: But what about those who choose to slack and live off social services? Surely the money is better used elsewhere...
  79. David Griffith from Canada writes: For the Libs here who are trying to put negative spin on this, I ask you this: if you don't like to see more money spent on the military, then how exactly are we to defend our sovereignty...our oceans...our resources...our north...our citizens...if we DON'T upgrade the military from the boy scouts they were under Liberal rule? Do you wish to see us even less able to look after ourselves? Do you really WANT the US to be our protectors, US bashers that you are? We live in an increasingly dangerous world. Who exactly is going to look after Canadian interests? Greenpeace?? It would be nice to know that in the event of an invasion attempt by, say, Iceland, we could fend for ourselves, LOL. Are we going to assert ourselves with harsh language, or are we going to give our forces some clout? Given the dangerous work they do, is it too much to ask of Canadians to support anything that will help protect them in their duties?

    Kudos to the PM for again putting Canada and Canadians first, and restoring pride in the forces that have given so much to this country in 2 world wars .
  80. jack sprat from Canada writes: Alan Burke, of course we want our children and families protected but I would venture to say that our children will be more at risk due to the effects of changes in the climate, bird flu and a lack of domestic health care than a challenge to our borders.

    that being said, we do need a strong military (relative to our size) but note that harper has not said or done anything about the threats I mention above. He promised to, just hasn't done anything (remember wait times or getting treatment in other provinces, or addressing the environment, or creating 25,000 day care spaces).

    What makes you believe this? Harper has PROVEN to be a man of many words and promises but little or no action.

    And to add to a comment earlier, how does this help us protect Canada from terrorists? What are we doing at the proactive level?

    This is political rhetoric at its finest. Be thankful most people are seeing through Steve by now. But clearly his pollsters have told him that this is an issue that can make him look better. Doesn;t take much these days.
  81. Honesty is the best Policy from Canada writes:
    ' I can fool enough of the people, I don't need Ontario or Newfoundland or educated people or city dwellers' Harper
  82. Mark H from Canada writes: Good move!
  83. Joe Gopher from Canada writes: mike sty - from Canada writes: Much of the Conservative strategy has been announced before.

    The plan also emphasizes the government's commitment to Arctic sovereignty, highlighting the 2008 budget allocations for a new polar class icebreaker
    -----------------------------

    Icebreaker???????????????

    Stephen Harper promised icebreaker...............

    instead we got slushbreakers.

    Just another broken promise on a growing list of broken promises.-
    -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    So you are in favour of Harper spending even more to buy better icebreakers?
    War monger.
  84. Dean The Machine from Winnipeg, Canada writes: If a country wants to be taken seriously by the rest of the world, it needs to have the capacity to act. It's just that simple,” Mr. Harper said. I'm in total agreement with this statement. Even though as Canadians we feel that armed conflict is an archaic way to settle differences, the rest of the world will not take you seriously, if you do not have the proper means to defend your borders. I don't know about you but I feel we can't afford piracy of our fishing stocks off our coasts or our borders becoming the drug hub for the dealer's. We can't afford not to have highly trained and motivated individuals with state of the art equipment to rescue us in environmental emergencies. If we show we have the capability to back up our talk then we are taken seriously. Anyone who thinks differently is out to lunch.
  85. Nancy Wilson from N.Ontario, Canada writes: If we are to have a Miltary at all,then it requires funding.
    And expensive Military funding for equip. etc may not be what gets votes,but it should be a definite priority.
    Our soldiers shouldn't have to 'borrow' helicopters from other Countries,nor should they be equipped with 30 yr.old hardware.
    People who like to refer to this move as 'warmongering',must also believe that Canada should not have a miltary at all.
    The fact is,we do have a Miitary,and it requires updates for the sake of our soldiers safety.
  86. The Oracle from Caiman Islands, Canada writes: Vote Stephen Harper. Vote War.
  87. god bless canada from Canada writes: i think that military duty is something we should all share. i think isreral has the right idea each person has military training and serves 2 years i think thats what they do. a well trained country is a better secured country
  88. The Oracle from Caiman Islands, Canada writes: Conservatives model Canada after US style military.
  89. siren call from Canada writes: Harper is the king of constantly re-announcing initiatives. Especially when he doesn't want to be seen in the House of Commons.

    Is this build up for defence?
    Patrolling our lands?
    Offence and helping the Americans with their wars?
    What kind of demands will the military face in the future?
    How will the forces interact with CSIS, RCMP and disaster relief agencies?

    No one knows because there are no details and no plans beyond spending.

    Just like immigration, we are welcome to read into this what we want.

    But what will be delivered?
  90. David Griffith from Canada writes: Stan L from Canada writes: Honesty is the best Policy from Canada writes:
    Just another hot air re-announcement and promises this regime won't be around for.

    No kidding, this is not NEW news, this is campaign rhetoric derived from the budget.....to make this resonate even more with the public, he actually has sent out Flaherty to tell Ontarians today how the economy is in great shape and talk about all the things that the Canadian economy can't control like the dolllar etc.....all so we think this spending STILL makes sense given the economic conditions right now
    --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    STILL waiting, hoping the economy tanks, eh, Stan? Atta boy. Good Liberal all the way, wishing you, me, our families, friends, citizens all get financially shafted JUST so the Libs can regain power. Helluva trade-off, guy. Helluva trade-off.

    Won't happen.
  91. Honesty is the best Policy from Canada writes:
    From the comments here I guess Conservative/Reform/Alliance types are easily impressed by re-announcements.
  92. Joe Gopher from Canada writes: Isn't it one of the left's most cherished fantasies that the US will invade us some day?
    You know, the big bad war mongering Americans and all that?
    They want to steal the arctic from us and take all our water and maple syrup and poutine?

    If you believe that, wouldn't the idea of having a robust military be a good i