The general WHAT IN THE WORLD is going on in Canada?

[TenEightyOne]

NATO payments

No such thing.

a % of GDP.

Correct.

Latest stats indicate Canada is paying less than 1%

Quite. That 2% of GDP isn't a requirement but a guideline. Canada's big spends (like any country) are replacing planes, ships and other complex vehicles. They'll be spending to replace/replenish their long-standing air and sea fleets between now and 2024 so look for that % to alter (just as GDP does). Looking at the guideline as a hard-and-fast rule could lead you to completely misunderstand how year-to-year GDP and military budgets are fluid.

the US close to 4% of GDP

That fact, concerning as that sort of overspend is, has nothing at all to do with NATO requirements.

Better go back to the drawing board.

Something tells me you won't

 

[winet]

Already posted the facts and read your rationalization. If it makes you feel better more power to you but the facts are the facts

 

[TenEightyOne]

Already posted the facts and read your rationalization. If it makes you feel better more power to you but the facts are the facts

Nope. You claim there are such things as "NATO payments". Quite simply... you're wrong. There is no such thing. Your links prove that, you should read them.

 

[Scaff]

You stated that Canada hadn't hut it's payments for decades.

Three main issues with those 'facts', the payments don't exist in that way, the 2% target hasn't been in place for decades, and all members have until 2024 to reach it.

 

[winet]

You stated that Canada hadn't hut it's payments for decades.

Three main issues with those 'facts', the payments don't exist in that way, the 2% target hasn't been in place for decades, and all members have until 2024 to reach it.

So the check is in the mail. LOLOLOL

 

[Scaff]

So the check is in the mail. LOLOLOL

That's the reply we get after you being so spectacularly wrong.

Explains quite a bit.

Lets be blunt about this, you made a number of factual claims, and then doubled down on them. You were wrong about them, and a rather poor attempt at humour doesn't change any of that.

 

[winet]

By the way this isn't only a Trump issue. In 2011 Obama's Secretary of Defense Robert Gates said the very same thing .


Speaking to the Security and Defence Agenda conference on Friday, he said Nato could face a dim if not dismal future. He said he was exasperated that "just five of 28 allies - the US, UK, France, Greece, along with Albania - exceed the agreed 2% of GDP spending on defense

https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-13732733

 

[Scaff]

By the way this isn't only a Trump issue. In 2011 Obama's Secretary of Defense Robert Gates said the very same thing .


Speaking to the Security and Defence Agenda conference on Friday, he said Nato could face a dim if not dismal future. He said he was exasperated that "just five of 28 allies - the US, UK, France, Greece, along with Albania - exceed the agreed 2% of GDP spending on defense

https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-13732733

I think you will find that everyone on here is quite aware of that, the problem is that your factual claims about it were utterly wrong.

• Canada hasn't failed to do so for decades (because it hasn't been in place for decades)
• You can't fail to hit something that doesn't get enforced for another six years
• The 2% doesn't relate to NATO payments but to defence spending within the country itself

The 2% relates to indirect NATO targets, the funding of NATO's day to day and joint projects is not calculated from GDP, but from GDI which Canada covers around 6.4% (of the total NATO budget) and has always paid in full. Numbers that should you wish to dispute I would suggest you take up with NATO.

American's getting arsey about it would also do well to remembers the only time the common defence clause was enacted and who it benefited.

 

[winet]

I think you will find that everyone on here is quite aware of that, the problem is that your factual claims about it were utterly wrong.

• Canada hasn't failed to do so for decades (because it hasn't been in place for decades)
• You can't fail to hit something that doesn't get enforced for another six years
• The 2% doesn't relate to NATO payments but to defence spending within the country itself

The 2% relates to indirect NATO targets, the funding of NATO's day to day and joint projects is not calculated from GDP, but from GDI which Canada covers around 6.4% (of the total NATO budget) and has always paid in full. Numbers that should you wish to dispute I would suggest you take up with NATO.

American's getting arsey about it would also do well to remembers the only time the common defence clause was enacted and who it benefited.

1 Canada has been a member of NATO since it was founded in 1949.NATO is a major contributor to international peace and security and a cornerstone of Canadian security and defence policy. The Alliance is the embodiment of the transatlantic link that binds North American and European security together.
2 So the check is still in the mail
3 And you are still a full 1% below the suggested level of spending

That's the reply we get after you being so spectacularly wrong.

Explains quite a bit.

Lets be blunt about this, you made a number of factual claims, and then doubled down on them. You were wrong about them, and a rather poor attempt at humour doesn't change any of that.

My response was based on the underfunding excuse presented by another poster. Not sure what you mean by it explains a lot. It is a fact that Canada has underfunded their NATO defense spending for years

Thank you all for trying to teach me black is white. I am over and out Bye bye

Canadian defence spending among lowest in NATO despite small increase last year
Canada pushed the percentage of its GDP spent on defence to 1.02 from 0.98 in 2016

http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/nato-spending-gdp-brussels-1.4022576

 

[Scaff]

1 Canada has been a member of NATO since it was founded in 1949.NATO is a major contributor to international peace and security and a cornerstone of Canadian security and defence policy. The Alliance is the embodiment of the transatlantic link that binds North American and European security together.

Canada being a member since 1949 doesn't mean a damn thing at all.

The 2% guideline for a countries internal defence spending didn't come in until 2006 and at the time was just that, a guideline. No firmer commitment to was made until 2014, when it was agreed that all countries would hit it by 2024.

2 So the check is still in the mail

That would only apply if a) that was actually a payment due to NATO, which its not and b) it was past due, which its not.

3 And you are still a full 1% below the suggested level of spending

I'm not the country of Canada, I'm not even Canadian.

Good however to note that you have now started using the term spending, rather than you initial claims (that were facts to use your own words) of it being a payment.

My response was based on the underfunding excuse presented by another poster. Not sure what you mean by it explains a lot. It is a fact that Canada has underfunded their NATO defense spending for years

Thank you all for trying to teach me black is white. I am over and out Bye bye

Canadian defence spending among lowest in NATO despite small increase last year
Canada pushed the percentage of its GDP spent on defence to 1.02 from 0.98 in 2016

http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/nato-spending-gdp-brussels-1.4022576

In which you claimed this was a payment due by Canada to NATO, that is the point you doubled down on and has been argued, nothing else.

You are the one who made the utterly incorrect claim that the 2% was a payment to NATO, you are the one that failed to understand that its still a guideline amount, that failed to understand that Canada does meeting its direct funding responsibility to NATO (the payments it actually makes) and that the 2% doesn't need to be met until 2024 (and as such the 'its in the mail' quip is neither a good analogy or even close to being one).

Source: NATO https://www.nato.int/cps/ie/natohq/topics_67655.htm

Oh and triple posting, increasing the font point size and going bold doesn't strengthen your argument or change your original mistake.

You mixed up indirect internal spending targets with direct NATO payments, why not simply acknowledge that?

 

[Imari]

There's another interesting thing to note: a number of the NATO countries are waiting on F-35s.

Those aren't cheap, and have been severely delayed. You can't spend money on a product that isn't available. F-35s are available, but in limited numbers. That program alone is a lot of money that NATO members would like to have spent on aircraft but currently can't because of the delays in the program and manufacturing.

 

[Scaff]

There's another interesting thing to note: a number of the NATO countries are waiting on F-35s.

Those aren't cheap, and have been severely delayed. You can't spend money on a product that isn't available. F-35s are available, but in limited numbers. That program alone is a lot of money that NATO members would like to have spent on aircraft but currently can't because of the delays in the program and manufacturing.

That's assuming when you do get them they are actually usable.

https://www.news.com.au/technology/...d/news-story/7a28b881ff92cc27ed5fd88f2480f512

Oddly enough Canada were going to by a load of F-35's, that ended when Trump put the 292% tariff/duty combo on Bombardier, while that duty was kicked out by the USITC the damage was done (but apparently over aggressive tariffs and pissing off allies works).

 

[Johnnypenso]

That's assuming when you do get them they are actually usable.

https://www.news.com.au/technology/...d/news-story/7a28b881ff92cc27ed5fd88f2480f512

Oddly enough Canada were going to by a load of F-35's, that ended when Trump put the 292% tariff/duty combo on Bombardier, while that duty was kicked out by the USITC the damage was done (but apparently over aggressive tariffs and pissing off allies works).

Oddly enough Trudeau must be a psychic. He campaigned in 2015 on a promise to not follow through with the great Stephen Harper's promise to purchase the F-35s well before Trump was POTUS.

Justin Trudeau vows to scrap F-35 fighter jet program...in 2015

Even in Canada not everything is Trump's fault

 

[TenEightyOne]

Oddly enough Trudeau must be a psychic. He campaigned in 2015 on a promise to not follow through with the great Stephen Harper's promise to purchase the F-35s well before Trump was POTUS.

Justin Trudeau vows to scrap F-35 fighter jet program...in 2015

Even in Canada not everything is Trump's fault

The discussion is more about actual and projected spending. Since that time Canada has invested another $30+ million into the programme and remains one of the nine project partners.

 

[Johnnypenso]

The discussion is more about actual and projected spending. Since that time Canada has invested another $30+ million into the programme and remains one of the nine project partners.

Odd. I thought I was in the Canada thread responding to a post about Canada that appears to be innaccurate.

 

[Scaff]

Oddly enough Trudeau must be a psychic. He campaigned in 2015 on a promise to not follow through with the great Stephen Harper's promise to purchase the F-35s well before Trump was POTUS.

Justin Trudeau vows to scrap F-35 fighter jet program...in 2015

Even in Canada not everything is Trump's fault

And Trump gave him the nail and hammer to finish the job.

 

[TenEightyOne]

Odd. I thought I was in the Canada thread responding to a post about Canada that appears to be innaccurate.

Which post in particular? I was only answering your point that Trudeau might not spend some money in the future by pointing out that since he said that he's continued to spend the money.

 

[Johnnypenso]

And Trump gave him the nail and hammer to finish the job.

As I said, it was part of Trudeau's platform 3 years ago. So unless he is a psychic it has nothing to do with Donald Trump as much as you would like it to be.

 

[Scaff]

As I said, it was part of Trudeau's platform 3 years ago. So unless he is a psychic it has nothing to do with Donald Trump as much as you would like it to be.

Ok, my mix up. The F35 order was replaced with an order for Super Hornets (still US manufactured aircraft) and it was that order that the Trump administration lost as a result of the Bombardier tariffs and duty increase.

https://www.theguardian.com/austral...old-fighter-jets-from-australia-in-snub-to-us

Canada: we're going to buy a load of F35s
US: Great
JT: Not if I get elected
US: Boo
JT (now elected): Replaces F35s with Super Hornet order
US: Phew we still sold something
US: BTW big fat tariffs and duty on Bombardiers new plane
Canada: Right forget about that order for the Super Hornets
USITC: Umm those tariffs and duty on the Bombardiers can't happen
US: Bugger
Boeing: Bugger (twice)
Lockheed Martin: Bugger
Australia: Excellent we got rid of the old stuff.

Seems quite straightforward to my mind, the Trump admin gave him the perfect excuse to do it, not sure what's complicated about that at all.

Now the F35 is still in the running for a new tender (that Super Hornet deal is however gone for good), but to quote one of the tender terms:

“The evaluation of bids will also include an assessment of bidders’ impact on Canada’s economic interests. When bids are assessed, any bidder that is responsible for harm to Canada’s economic interests will be at a distinct disadvantage.”
https://www.ainonline.com/aviation-news/defense/2018-02-26/f-35-and-super-hornet-back-table-canada

I wonder who that could be aimed at?

 

[Johnnypenso]

Ok, my mix up. The F35 order was replaced with an order for Super Hornets (still US manufactured aircraft) and it was that order that the Trump administration lost as a result of the Bombardier tariffs and duty increase.

https://www.theguardian.com/austral...old-fighter-jets-from-australia-in-snub-to-us

Canada: we're going to buy a load of F35s
US: Great
JT: Not if I get elected
US: Boo
JT (now elected): Replaces F35s with Super Hornet order
US: Phew we still sold something
US: BTW big fat tariffs and duty on Bombardiers new plane
Canada: Right forget about that order for the Super Hornets
USITC: Umm those tariffs and duty on the Bombardiers can't happen
US: Bugger
Boeing: Bugger (twice)
Lockheed Martin: Bugger
Australia: Excellent we got rid of the old stuff.

Seems quite straightforward to my mind, the Trump admin gave him the perfect excuse to do it, not sure what's complicated about that at all.

Now the F35 is still in the running for a new tender (that Super Hornet deal is however gone for good), but to quote one of the tender terms:

“The evaluation of bids will also include an assessment of bidders’ impact on Canada’s economic interests. When bids are assessed, any bidder that is responsible for harm to Canada’s economic interests will be at a distinct disadvantage.”
https://www.ainonline.com/aviation-news/defense/2018-02-26/f-35-and-super-hornet-back-table-canada

I wonder who that could be aimed at?

It's not complicated at all. You got the facts wrong. Another fact that's wrong is there was no "order" for the Super Hornets. There was a letter of offer and acceptance on the table from Boeing and we simply let it expire. In plain english we were given a price list and we declined to buy. We never were under any obligation to buy the plane, had entered no agreements and there were no penalties. Canada is not unfamiliar with buying other countries old and crappy military equipment. Buying old used airplanes cheap instead of buying new and state of the art is business as usual around here and it's just as likely that Trudeau used the political issues as justification for doing what he wanted to do all along.

 

[Scaff]

It's not complicated at all. You got the facts wrong. Another fact that's wrong is there was no "order" for the Super Hornets. There was a letter of offer and acceptance on the table from Boeing and we simply let it expire. In plain english we were given a price list and we declined to buy. We never were under any obligation to buy the plane, had entered no agreements and there were no penalties. Canada is not unfamiliar with buying other countries old and crappy military equipment.

So exactly the same as the F35 and just about every military order from every country, in other words Boeing lost the business because of tariffs they and the Trump admin pushed for.

I mean it's not like the Canadian air force has a long track record of buying American or its fleet being primarily American is it?

Aside from a small number of UK made trainers and Israeli drones it's almost exclusively US product, so to try and dismiss this as almost nothing is simply inacurate.

A US company lost business (and another has been seriously disadvantaged) because of US tariff and duty policy. If you don't actually believe that, well I gave some bridges to sell.....

Buying old used airplanes cheap instead of buying new and state of the art is business as usual around here

I can only find references to an initial look at Kuwaiti planes before settling on the Australian ones?

The F-35 is so state of the art that it doesn't actually work yet; not sure I would want to drop that much on a plane that's still in beta.

http://nationalinterest.org/blog/th...has-long-way-go-before-it-will-be-ready-24810
http://www.thedrive.com/the-war-zon...-milestone-but-with-watered-down-requirements
https://www.popularmechanics.com/military/aviation/a19122455/half-f-35-fleet-is-flight-ready/
https://medium.com/war-is-boring/the-f-35-stealth-fighter-may-never-be-ready-for-combat-5c1180d6e2b1

...it's just as likely that Trudeau used the political issues as justification for doing what he wanted to do all along.

You mean exactly as I said!

 

[Imari]

Canada: we're going to buy a load of F35s
US: Great
JT: Not if I get elected
US: Boo
JT (now elected): Replaces F35s with Super Hornet order
US: Phew we still sold something
US: BTW big fat tariffs and duty on Bombardiers new plane
Canada: Right forget about that order for the Super Hornets
USITC: Umm those tariffs and duty on the Bombardiers can't happen
US: Bugger
Boeing: Bugger (twice)
Lockheed Martin: Bugger
Australia: Excellent we got rid of the old stuff.

Yeah, we're stoked to have found someone to actually pay us for our old F18s. I remain surprised that they did so, but I imagine that Canada got a pretty good price for them. Depending on how far Canada is able to upgrade them, they're still pretty competent planes against most non-US/Russia/China adversaries.

And Boeing is actually still looking at building an Advanced Super Hornet, so that's another future purchase option for Canada, and there are a number of European planes that are likely competitive price and performance-wise for what a country like Canada would use them for. And there's always the Strike Eagle, which is a surprisingly decent plane too.

My understanding was that the original Canadian F35 thing was essentially banged through with little assessment or oversight of what would be best for Canada, it was essentially an example of Canada doing the friendly neighbour thing and having the US' back on this big project they wanted to do. The UK did much the same. Since then it's been pretty back and forth depending on who is in power in Canada. The F35 may still be the best choice, especially if the price keeps coming down, but the US likes to make noises like it's the only competitive airframe in the space and it's really not, even if you rule out purchasing from Russia and China. True open trials based on a specific military's use cases would be very interesting to see.

 

[Biggles]

You can slice it & dice it anyway you like, but the bottom line is these "trade war" measures by Trump make no sense at all. The global economy is now so integrated that you can't tinker with one corner of it without negative repercussions in other areas. This is particularly the case with US/Canada trade & the most effected area will probably be Windsor, Ontario: the effects of trade disruption are likely to be a significant drag on the local economy on both sides of the border.

 

[Johnnypenso]

I mean it's not like the Canadian air force has a long track record of buying American or its fleet being primarily American is it?

Aside from a small number of UK made trainers and Israeli drones it's almost exclusively US product, so to try and dismiss this as almost nothing is simply inacurate.

A US company lost business (and another has been seriously disadvantaged) because of US tariff and duty policy. If you don't actually believe that, well I gave some bridges to sell.....[/QUOTE]I'm not dismissing it as nothing, I simply corrected your blatantly false statement above. It's certainly a possibility that Trudeau never intended to buy new planes anyway and simply found a better deal on used planes just like we did with old, leaky subs from Britain a couple of decades ago.

 

[Scaff]

I'm not dismissing it as nothing, I simply corrected your blatantly false statement above.

Which one, you seem to be all over the place here.

It's certainly a possibility that Trudeau never intended to buy new planes anyway and simply found a better deal on used planes just like we did with old, leaky subs from Britain a couple of decades ago.

Didn't you say "Buying old used airplanes cheap instead of buying new and state of the art is business as usual around here"?

Now the last time I checked submarines didn't fly and twenty years doesn't seem very business as usual.

Now let just check on the point I was making, that the Trump administrations actions on tariffs and duty cost US business money, you seem to be jumping through some absurd hoops to try and mitigate what I think most people see as rather obviously true.

 

[Johnnypenso]

Which one, you seem to be all over the place here.


Didn't you say "Buying old used airplanes cheap instead of buying new and state of the art is business as usual around here"?

Now the last time I checked submarines didn't fly and twenty years doesn't seem very business as usual.

Now let just check on the point I was making, that the Trump administrations actions on tariffs and duty cost US business money, you seem to be jumping through some absurd hoops to try and mitigate what I think most people see as rather obviously true.

More or less obviously true than us deciding not to buy F35's because Trump, even though it had nothing to do with Trump?

 

[Scaff]

More or less obviously true than us deciding not to buy F35's because Trump, even though it had nothing to do with Trump?

Who runs the US administration?

That aside I've been saying Trump administration.

 

[Johnnypenso]

Who runs the US administration?

That aside I've been saying Trump administration.

Trump or Trump administration. Neither one had anything to do with the F-35's and there was no order for Super Hornets, just an offer to sell them to us. Kind of like walking into a car dealership and seeing a price tag, deciding not to buy and the slimy car salesman crying that you cancelled the deal. Try to get your facts straight.

 

[Scaff]

Trump or Trump administration. Neither one had anything to do with the F-35's and there was no order for Super Hornets, just an offer to sell them to us. Kind of like walking into a car dealership and seeing a price tag, deciding not to buy and the slimy car salesman crying that you cancelled the deal. Try to get your facts straight.

I was referring to the placement of tariffs and duty on Bombardier, which was requested by Boeing, approved by the Trump administration and removed by the USITC.

Which was then used as a reason by the Canadian government to by planes from Australia rather than the planed purchase from the US (as the majority of aircraft they use have historically come from).

If Canada had never bought a US plane in the past you might have a point, but they have rather a track record of doing so (despite your unproven claim of having a business as usual policy of buying second hand from other countries).

To use your analogy, if a customers family have bought the majority of cars from you in the past, and a member of staff pisses them off and they then go an purchase from elsewhere you would consider that action to be a rather big factor (and if you don't - never go and work in a dealership).

 

[TenEightyOne]

Kind of like walking into a car dealership and seeing a price tag, deciding not to buy and the slimy car salesman crying that you cancelled the deal. Try to get your facts straight.

It's like walking into a dealership, seeing a car, making an offer, having your offer accepted, calling a press conference to announce the handover of the cash and then cancelling the whole deal with an hour to go. I agree the salesman's slimy but the rest of your comparison didn't quite fly (hur hur).