Comments on: Spending two per cent of GDP is misleading

By: jhapper

jhapper — Thu, 22 Jun 2017 21:13:00 +0000

I agree with you Mr Davison,
It should be fairly easy to define what constitutes MILITARY SPENDING. NATO could publish the parameters and each country would be required to show some form of audited account – maybe it could be included in our annual Auditor General’s report. As it is now, the announcement by our MOD is too loose, and as we know this government and each successive government need to be tied down to specifics – the old trick of DELAYING an expense amounts to the same thing as cancelling an expense and this should be picked up and shown for what it is.
The CAF talk about our military ethos, and we all know what this means, so why do our governments, the CAF’s bosses not adopt the same degree of responsibility for their actions?

By: ReconScout

ReconScout — Thu, 22 Jun 2017 18:18:00 +0000

Just imagine if Canada did spend 2%. How many more Navy vessels, airplanes and armored vehicles to protect our soldiers that we could have. If the agreement that they signed to belong to Nato was 2%, then why would we not honor word? “Canada would remain in sixth place even if it added $20 billion a year to its defence budget.” This isn’t a contest to see what place were in. It’s doing our duty and have an honor. You can still spend 2% and spend it wisely. Should we pick on a country that is spending its 2% or more but can only afford a buy a small amount of equipment.

This would be like going in on a fence with your neighbor and 20 years later the fence is rotted and falling down but you expect your neighbor to put it back up again.