babble home
rabble.ca - news for the rest of us
today's active topics


  
FAQ | Forum Home
  next oldest topic   next newest topic
» babble   » current events   » canadian politics   » Secret report on Afghanistan spending report - will Stephen Harper let it go out?

Email this thread to someone!    
Author Topic: Secret report on Afghanistan spending report - will Stephen Harper let it go out?
Spaceman Spiff
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 8047

posted 16 September 2008 11:45 AM      Profile for Spaceman Spiff     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Hi folks, It was reported today, that the Parliamentary Budget officer has compiled a report on Afghanistan that could be very damaging to the Liberals and Conservatives:

quote:
Mike Blanchfield, Canwest News Service
Published: Monday, September 15, 2008

OTTAWA - Canada's new parliamentary budget officer says federal politicians, including those in the opposition, should be told the overall cost of the six-year war in Afghanistan.

In an interview with Global National, Kevin Page says he is nearing the end of a special probe that tallies Canada's military involvement in Afghanistan. However, he said that he believes all-party consent is required to allow him to release the report during a federal election campaign.

Page, who was appointed in March, had hoped to release a preliminary estimate on the cost of keeping Canada's 2,500 troops in Afghanistan this month, when the House of Commons was due to reconvene.

But Prime Minister Stephen Harper's decision to call a federal election has effectively delayed the release of that figure.

"Certainly for parliamentarians and opposition, they have an important oversight role. They should know what those costs are ... It would be important to get the kind of transparency we need going forward," Page told Global News.

Releasing that figure now, during a federal election campaign, could be a thorny issue.

The mission in Afghanistan has had a low profile during the first nine days of the federal campaign, but if the cost of the war were revealed, it could cause headaches for the governing Conservatives, as well as the opposition Liberals, who originally committed Canadian troops to Kandahar while they were in power in 2005.

"At minimum, it would take an all-party agreement, and probably we'd be setting a precedent," said Page, who could be accused of interfering in the election if he were to release his figures now.

NDP foreign affairs critic Paul Dewar, whose party has called for an immediate withdrawal of Canadian troops from Afghanistan, has asked Page to release his cost estimates.

Dewar has argued it is wrong that the full cost of the war was not discussed in Parliament and for it not to be part of the election debate.

"It's absolutely fundamental that we have a costing of how much the war has cost us to date and until 2011," Dewar has said. "It's critical for Canadians who are about to decide on their political choices."

Dewar was not available for further comment because of the death Monday of his mother, Marion, a former Ottawa mayor and longtime New Democrat.

Previous estimates of the cost of the mission, based on the federal government's own spending estimates, have pegged the cost of the war at about $7 to $8 billion.


The video below explains that this number could actually be more like $20 billion.

So what do you figure, will Harper agree to let this report get out, or will he fire Kevin Page?

And will the Liberals, or Greens allow this report to get out?

[ 16 September 2008: Message edited by: Spaceman Spiff ]


From: Nepean | Registered: Jan 2005  |  IP: Logged
thorin_bane
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 6194

posted 16 September 2008 01:37 PM      Profile for thorin_bane     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Thanks for the post SS, yes it would be very interesting to know we are getting a million here a million there in petty vindictive cuts against "enemies of the government" while blowing billions on killing kids. To "make us safe, by fighting them on THEIR soil"
From: Looking at the despair of Detroit from across the river! | Registered: Jun 2004  |  IP: Logged
JimmyRiddle
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 13084

posted 16 September 2008 01:43 PM      Profile for JimmyRiddle     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Spaceman,

Don't you know that election campaigns are no place to debate public policy?

Signed,
Kim Campbell


From: Soap box | Registered: Aug 2006  |  IP: Logged
daveNewDem
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 15476

posted 16 September 2008 01:50 PM      Profile for daveNewDem     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Is there anything else on this? This is a great issue for Jack! Support our troops, bring them home!!!
From: Kingston | Registered: Sep 2008  |  IP: Logged
Oppo-Guy
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4159

posted 16 September 2008 02:03 PM      Profile for Oppo-Guy     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
This is ridiculous.

Harper is looking like Kim Campbell on this one: "Elections are no place to talk about serious issues like $20-40 billion wars and everything we can't do as a country because of it"

So much for Mr Accountablity.

Press on, Jack!


From: here | Registered: May 2003  |  IP: Logged
ocsi
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 13760

posted 16 September 2008 04:41 PM      Profile for ocsi     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
An article in the National Post says that all three opposition leaders want Harper to permit the release of the figures on the cost of the war.

I hope Harper refuses and gets nailed on it by Layton in the debates. Just imagine having a Prime Minister who doesn't want to tell the people the cost of an unpopular war. It could be a turning point in the debate. And Dion can't score with this because the Liberals got us involved in the first place. It's Jack's to take.


From: somewhere over the rainbow | Registered: Jan 2007  |  IP: Logged
remind
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 6289

posted 16 September 2008 05:33 PM      Profile for remind     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by ocsi:
the National Post says that all three opposition leaders want Harper to permit the release of the figures on the cost of the war.
Whilst EMay tackles the real meat of the issue, in the multi-billion dollar military expenditures:
quote:
16.09.2008 NEW GLASGOW – Elizabeth May, leader of the federal Green Party, today asked Defence Minster Peter MacKay for an explanation as to why the Defence Department dropped...Grohmann Knives in favour of a company supplying knives made in China.

http://www.greenparty.ca/en/releases/16.09.2008

quote:
I hope Harper refuses and gets nailed on it by Layton in the debates.
The media should be bombarded about this with people asking about coverage, and wanting it known, Global 6pm news said nothing. It should be media campaign trail issue, for the rest of the week, protestors wanting to know at Harper's stops etc, people asking the other 3 leaders about it etc.

quote:
It's Jack's to take.

Yes it is, and I am sure he will.

[ 16 September 2008: Message edited by: remind ]


From: "watching the tide roll away" | Registered: Jun 2004  |  IP: Logged
MCunningBC
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 14903

posted 16 September 2008 07:49 PM      Profile for MCunningBC        Edit/Delete Post
I think this may even qualify for a thread of its own.

Did anyone hear pundit/blogger Terry Glavin and Victoria NDP MP Denise Savoie on "As It Happens" tonite (Tues Sept 16)?

Terry did his usual thing of presenting himself as a long time NDP supporter who is mortified by the party's silly bugger pacifism on the Afganistan issue. For a complete rendition of his thoughts on this issue, see his blog:

Poor Denise Savoie (Apparently It's All Donald Rumsfeld's Fault)

Glavin has been on this subject for a long time, and searching his entire blog will produce a lot of other commentaries on this issue. I have seen this coming for months, that this would be an avenue of criticism of the NDP position.

Glavin is for all practical intents a Liberal. A decade ago he has doing pieces praising former Fisheries Minister David Anderson, and damning former BC Premier Glen Clark, in the Georgia Straight. He has had more recent columns in the Straight exhorting all Aboriginal voters in BC to vote a straight Liberal ticket, federally and provincially, partly to exclude the Tories, and partly to reward Gordon Campbell for his new relationship with Native peoples and their leaders. There's been other stuff too.

All in all, it looks to me like another CBC-Liberal propaganda job, with Glavin laying the groundwork months and even years in advance, and now launching his critique on a larger stage during an election. All of this would be pretty standard fare, but the problem is that Glavin is a very skillful wordsmith, and he make things sound very convincing.

[ 16 September 2008: Message edited by: MCunningBC ]


From: BC | Registered: Jan 2008  |  IP: Logged
Webgear
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 9443

posted 16 September 2008 07:58 PM      Profile for Webgear     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
I would like to know when the subject of Afghanistan will be discussed during this election campaign.

I thought this would be the NDP's strongest talking point.

[ 16 September 2008: Message edited by: Webgear ]


From: Montgomery's Tavern | Registered: May 2005  |  IP: Logged
Cueball
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4790

posted 16 September 2008 08:05 PM      Profile for Cueball   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Seriously dude! Like what the fuck. We are going to war with Pakistan and the NDP has its ass stuck up in its head.
From: Out from under the bridge and out for a stroll | Registered: Dec 2003  |  IP: Logged
M. Spector
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 8273

posted 16 September 2008 08:07 PM      Profile for M. Spector   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Webgear:
I would like to know when the subject of Afghanistan will be discussed during this election campaign.

I thought this would be the NDP's strongest talking point.


Actually, we've been discussing that for two threads over HERE.

From: One millihelen: The amount of beauty required to launch one ship. | Registered: Feb 2005  |  IP: Logged
Cueball
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4790

posted 16 September 2008 08:14 PM      Profile for Cueball   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
The whole web site has been awash with silly little tid-bits of meaningless drivel, including issues like votes swapping, which are discussed quite seriously using sports metaphors, to brick-a-brack bullshit about Chow not liking Tony Ianno (does anyone?), as if they are serious election issues worthy of discussion. It reality check time.
From: Out from under the bridge and out for a stroll | Registered: Dec 2003  |  IP: Logged
Fidel
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 5594

posted 16 September 2008 08:21 PM      Profile for Fidel     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Cueball:
Seriously dude! Like what the fuck. We are going to war with Pakistan and the NDP has its ass stuck up in its head.

You mean Webgear is going to war with Pakistan, because whatever Crazy George and Warshington says goes without saying for weak and ineffective Whig-Tory governments here in the Northern Puerto Rico.

How do you feel about being volunteered for a phony war on terror, Webgear? And how much do you think the stooogeocracy in Kabul has cost Canadian taxpayers so far? U.S.-backed kleptocracies don't come cheap ya know. Sky's the limit for Canada's two old line stooge parties when it comes to bending over for Uncle Sam.


From: Viva La Revolución | Registered: Apr 2004  |  IP: Logged
Cueball
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4790

posted 16 September 2008 08:27 PM      Profile for Cueball   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
He just said your parties strongest talking point was its position on Afghanistan, and all you can manage is an snotty personal attack.
From: Out from under the bridge and out for a stroll | Registered: Dec 2003  |  IP: Logged
Webgear
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 9443

posted 16 September 2008 08:27 PM      Profile for Webgear     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Webgear is going nowhere, he is grounded. He is not allowed to do anything.

I was wondering about the cost, I would like to see a comparison between Afghanistan and other missions.

I know that in 1997 in Bosnia, we were replacing engines on APCs on a bi-weekly basis because the vehicles were so old. That could not have been a cheap mission.


From: Montgomery's Tavern | Registered: May 2005  |  IP: Logged
Fidel
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 5594

posted 16 September 2008 08:43 PM      Profile for Fidel     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Cueball:
He just said your parties strongest talking point was its position on Afghanistan, and all you can manage is an snotty personal attack.

I am not sorry for attacking the two old line, worn-out stoogeocratic parties and their pro Crazy George Bush policies. If you think that was a personal attack on Webgear, then give your head a shake.

Liberals started it on Crazy George's orders, and now the Tories will see it through to whenever warmongering plutocrats in Warshington tell Canadians it will end. Come to think of it, it was our federal Liberals and Crazy Jorge de la Yayo's crew who started SPP behind closed doors, too. And that's not a personal attack on anyone here either.


From: Viva La Revolución | Registered: Apr 2004  |  IP: Logged
ocsi
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 13760

posted 17 September 2008 07:09 AM      Profile for ocsi     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Harper OK's release of report

The fallout will be interesting to watch.


From: somewhere over the rainbow | Registered: Jan 2007  |  IP: Logged
Spaceman Spiff
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 8047

posted 17 September 2008 08:35 AM      Profile for Spaceman Spiff     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
My thoughts:

This report is going to annihilate the spending plans of both the Conservatives and Liberals. How are they going to say that budgets will be balanced without raising taxes by 20 billion?

The NDP is going to have a huge peace dividend if they form the goverment.


From: Nepean | Registered: Jan 2005  |  IP: Logged
M. Spector
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 8273

posted 18 September 2008 06:45 AM      Profile for M. Spector   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
The Afghan war is going to end up costing the Defence Department more than $22 billion, in actual money spent on the mission and future payments to rebuild equipment and provide long-term care for veterans, a military conference heard yesterday.

The figures are contained in a yet-to-be-released study by security analyst David Perry, a former deputy director of Dalhousie University's Centre for Foreign Policy Studies. The study will be included in an upcoming edition of the International Journal published by the Canadian International Council....

The figures don't include the cost of aid to Afghanistan or the cost of the mission for other federal departments such as the RCMP and Foreign Affairs.

Such figures are expected to soon emerge. - Ottawa Citizen


[ 18 September 2008: Message edited by: M. Spector ]


From: One millihelen: The amount of beauty required to launch one ship. | Registered: Feb 2005  |  IP: Logged
Frustrated Mess
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 8312

posted 18 September 2008 06:57 AM      Profile for Frustrated Mess   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Stephen Harper took his political opponents to task Wednesday, calling the level of spending proposed by the Liberals and New Democrats "mind-boggling" at a time when Canadians fear economic uncertainty could spread from south of the border.

But billions to kill is not mind boggling ...


From: doom without the gloom | Registered: Feb 2005  |  IP: Logged
M. Spector
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 8273

posted 24 September 2008 07:04 AM      Profile for M. Spector   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
The figures might not be "ready" to release before the election...
From: One millihelen: The amount of beauty required to launch one ship. | Registered: Feb 2005  |  IP: Logged
ocsi
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 13760

posted 08 October 2008 02:57 AM      Profile for ocsi     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Cost of Afghan mission to be released on Thursday

quote:
Page will table his report, entitled The Fiscal Impact of the Canadian Mission in Afghanistan, on Thursday at about 11 a.m.

The Conservative government has previously estimated the total cost to date of Canada's mission is under $8 billion.

All party leaders had agreed to allow the release of the report, despite concerns it could sway how Canadians cast their ballots on Oct. 14.


The release of this report could really help the NDP in the final days of this campaign. All the parties, except the NDP, supported this mission and now they will have to take responsibility for their reckless adventure. The true cost of the war and the coming financial crisis should make the Liberals, Bloc and the Conservatives squirm.


From: somewhere over the rainbow | Registered: Jan 2007  |  IP: Logged
remind
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 6289

posted 08 October 2008 08:21 AM      Profile for remind     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by ocsi:
The release of this report could really help the NDP in the final days of this campaign. All the parties, except the NDP, supported this mission and now they will have to take responsibility for their reckless adventure. The true cost of the war and the coming financial crisis should make the Liberals, Bloc and the Conservatives squirm.

The fact that this is going to be released, suggests to me that the Cons have devised a way to spin it against the Liberals. Whether or not that means a swing to the NDP I do not know. Hopefully, the NDP have been brainstorming all possibilities for Cons spin and have words ready to go for any scenario, if they do not they had better be up all night doing it. The message coming out has to be hard hitting to manage perceptions.


From: "watching the tide roll away" | Registered: Jun 2004  |  IP: Logged
ocsi
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 13760

posted 08 October 2008 09:06 AM      Profile for ocsi     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by remind:

The fact that this is going to be released, suggests to me that the Cons have devised a way to spin it against the Liberals. Whether or not that means a swing to the NDP I do not know. Hopefully, the NDP have been brainstorming all possibilities for Cons spin and have words ready to go for any scenario, if they do not they had better be up all night doing it. The message coming out has to be hard hitting to manage perceptions.


I think the only way the NDP can use this report to its advantage is if the cost of the war far exceeds original estimates.

It's unfortunate that this war didn't become one of the major issues of the campaign. But I understand that bread and butter issues are more important to most people than a war half way around the world.

Still, there could be unexpected negative developments in the last few days of the election campaign that can highlight Canada's involvement in the war.


From: somewhere over the rainbow | Registered: Jan 2007  |  IP: Logged
remind
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 6289

posted 08 October 2008 09:23 AM      Profile for remind     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by ocsi:
I think the only way the NDP can use this report to its advantage is if the cost of the war far exceeds original estimates.
Oh there is no doubt it will be way way over, the Cons having been paying huge amounts out to former Canadian military personnel, as private contractors in Afghanistan. And I mean large amounts, I personally know 3 people who have done so, because what they got for their short term contracts, put their kids through university, and left them with a good amount for their retirment. 2 of them have 3 kids while the other has 4. So there must be many more across Canada who have received the same type of deal. And that is not even going into the real heavy expenses of; equipment purchases and losses, personnel costs, food costs, shipment costs, reconstruction and development money, munitions, RCMP personnel training Afghans, medical care, dangerous mission payouts, and more.

quote:
Still, there could be unexpected negative developments in the last few days of the election campaign that can highlight Canada's involvement in the war.

There will be, but who it falls on will be the story, so who gets the message out and strongest will benefit.

Moreover, if Harper has put us into a deficit situation with this, as that will be able to be found out quite swiftly, given the fact people are already pouring over government spending outlays and tax cuts.

See the following link:

http://mikewatkins.ca/

[ 08 October 2008: Message edited by: remind ]


From: "watching the tide roll away" | Registered: Jun 2004  |  IP: Logged
daveNewDem
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 15476

posted 09 October 2008 03:43 AM      Profile for daveNewDem     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
This is a perfect issue for rabble folk to take to the tubes with. I have been posting about the that absolutely NO liberal who previously supported ending the war in 2009 but who voted FOR the 2011 should be re-elected.
Everyone knows that the only reason that the Liberals supported the extension was because they were to afraid to go to the polls.

The blood of every injured or killed Canadian soldier or Afghani civilian is on their hands and they must not be rewarded for this reprehensibly cynical vote

here are some links that you can post around to bolster the argument

The Dion Liberal history of the AFghan votes
http://www.ndp.ca/page/7179.

Harper spinning on Afghan war
http://www.ndp.ca/page/7177

Dion's personal history on Afghan war policy/votes
http://www.ndp.ca/page/7150

Liberal history on Iraq War
http://www.ndp.ca/page/7093

Jack in the House - Statement in the House when Libs prolonged
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W54KnRfTGig

Jack in the House - 2 choices War or Peace
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LScFfGCs_fw

Secret Report - the True Cost of War
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SWtIcEw6tyg

Harper must release the Afghan Report
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rRml1zq6DBc


From: Kingston | Registered: Sep 2008  |  IP: Logged
ocsi
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 13760

posted 09 October 2008 07:24 AM      Profile for ocsi     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
18.1 BILLION and counting.

What a total waste!


From: somewhere over the rainbow | Registered: Jan 2007  |  IP: Logged
HeywoodFloyd
token right-wing mascot
Babbler # 4226

posted 09 October 2008 07:35 AM      Profile for HeywoodFloyd     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Didn't we hear 18bn as a total cost before? Why does this number sound famailliar to me?
From: Edmonton: This place sucks | Registered: Jun 2003  |  IP: Logged
remind
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 6289

posted 09 October 2008 07:38 AM      Profile for remind     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
a lack of government consistency and transparency has made the figures difficult to estimate, and they likely understate the full costs of the mission, the report said.


As Page tabled the report, he criticized the government's inconsistent accounting methods, its lack of consistency and transparency and its lack of mission-specific cost records by department, which he listed as challenges faced by his team in coming up with estimates.

"To date, Parliament has been provided with only limited information, often after the fact, on these costs, and has not been given estimates on future costs that may be incurred in the support of the veterans of these conflicts," the report says.

Page added that Canada "appears to lag behind the best practices of other jurisdictions in terms of the quality and frequency of war cost reporting to their respective legislatures."



From: "watching the tide roll away" | Registered: Jun 2004  |  IP: Logged
Noise
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 12603

posted 09 October 2008 07:40 AM      Profile for Noise     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
The figures released Thursday are incremental costs — that is, they do not include costs such as salaries that would be incurred by Canada's military anyway, even if it were not in Afghanistan. The cost of military operations, veterans benefits and foreign aid related to the mission were all part of the estimate.


It doesn't look like this includes the price tag for any of the militaries new toys that they needed for Afghanistan either... How much in new military equipment could be added to the 18.1 billion total?


From: Protest is Patriotism | Registered: May 2006  |  IP: Logged
HeywoodFloyd
token right-wing mascot
Babbler # 4226

posted 09 October 2008 07:53 AM      Profile for HeywoodFloyd     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Noise:


It doesn't look like this includes the price tag for any of the militaries new toys that they needed for Afghanistan either... How much in new military equipment could be added to the 18.1 billion total?



Maybe that was what I was thinking about. Wasn't it 18bn for new hardware etc?

eta:Nope. I'm wrong. 18bn is the 08-09 budget.

[ 09 October 2008: Message edited by: HeywoodFloyd ]


From: Edmonton: This place sucks | Registered: Jun 2003  |  IP: Logged
Mojoroad1
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 15404

posted 09 October 2008 07:55 AM      Profile for Mojoroad1     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Both the Liberals and Cons have to wear this one. I hope Jack comes out swinging!
From: Muskoka | Registered: Aug 2008  |  IP: Logged
Mojoroad1
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 15404

posted 09 October 2008 08:06 AM      Profile for Mojoroad1     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Oh and I forgot.... whoops! there goes the supposed surplus!
From: Muskoka | Registered: Aug 2008  |  IP: Logged
Noise
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 12603

posted 09 October 2008 08:29 AM      Profile for Noise     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Maybe that was what I was thinking about. Wasn't it 18bn for new hardware etc?

Possibly... How many billions were sunk into new choppers again?

For the full cost of the war, the price of the hardware purchased for the military should be included.


From: Protest is Patriotism | Registered: May 2006  |  IP: Logged
HeywoodFloyd
token right-wing mascot
Babbler # 4226

posted 09 October 2008 08:32 AM      Profile for HeywoodFloyd     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
You can't do that since the hardware isn't exclusively for Afganistan. That would be a violation of GAAP rules.
From: Edmonton: This place sucks | Registered: Jun 2003  |  IP: Logged
M. Spector
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 8273

posted 09 October 2008 08:32 AM      Profile for M. Spector   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
134. Plans to spend $15 billion on military vehicles, including transport planes, heavy-lift helicopters, troop carrier ships and trucks, over the next several years.
...

137. A 2008 defence budget of $18.2 billion as part of a "Canada First Defence Strategy" projected to cost $490 billion over the next 20 years


From: One millihelen: The amount of beauty required to launch one ship. | Registered: Feb 2005  |  IP: Logged
remind
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 6289

posted 09 October 2008 08:32 AM      Profile for remind     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Noise:
It doesn't look like this includes the price tag for any of the militaries new toys that they needed for Afghanistan either... How much in new military equipment could be added to the 18.1 billion total?

It doesn't include that, and the total at it's lowest amount would be another 53.1 billion.

Through their multi-billion dollar Canada First Defence Strategy, the government granted the military some $45 billion to $50 billion to purchase new equipment for the Afghan mission.

quote:
In addition, the government has announced plans to build a $780-million polar class icebreaker and up to eight Arctic/Offshore Patrol Ships at a cost of $3.1 billion.

From: "watching the tide roll away" | Registered: Jun 2004  |  IP: Logged
M. Spector
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 8273

posted 09 October 2008 08:44 AM      Profile for M. Spector   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Well, now that we have the secret report on Afghanistan spending, when do we get to see the "Secret report on Afghanistan spending report" that was referred to in the title of this thread?
From: One millihelen: The amount of beauty required to launch one ship. | Registered: Feb 2005  |  IP: Logged
remind
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 6289

posted 09 October 2008 09:32 AM      Profile for remind     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Unbelievable really, that so far this adventure in Afghanistan has so far cost us about 75 - 80 billion dollars.

Moreover, up until the time Harper took over it was costing about 1.5 billion per year. At least I remember seeing reports about that figure. How could it have gone up 17 billion/year, with out equipment purchases added?


From: "watching the tide roll away" | Registered: Jun 2004  |  IP: Logged
Fidel
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 5594

posted 09 October 2008 09:54 AM      Profile for Fidel     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Boy, will Dion and the Liberals ever be hopping mad about this!!
From: Viva La Revolución | Registered: Apr 2004  |  IP: Logged
ocsi
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 13760

posted 09 October 2008 10:05 AM      Profile for ocsi     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Fidel:
Boy, will Dion and the Liberals ever be hopping mad about this!!

This is a great opportunity for the NDP to show how all the other parties waste our money on a war that Canadians are against. Even Canadians who are in favour of our involvement in Afghanistan will balk at this amount of money.


From: somewhere over the rainbow | Registered: Jan 2007  |  IP: Logged
bagkitty
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 15443

posted 09 October 2008 10:31 AM      Profile for bagkitty     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Does anyone know if the party of choice has ads prepared and ready to run this weekend on the cost of the war in Afghanistan?
From: Calgary | Registered: Aug 2008  |  IP: Logged
Fidel
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 5594

posted 09 October 2008 11:34 AM      Profile for Fidel     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
NDP says Grits and Tories hid truth about Afghanistan cost

quote:
SUDBURY, Ont. — NDP Leader Jack Layton blasted both Liberals and Conservatives for the projected cost of the Afghans mission and accused both his political opponents of hiding the truth.

“The costs of the war are dramatically higher than the Harper government has been telling Canadians,” Mr. Layton said of the Conservative government during a campaign stop in Sudbury, Ont.

"The costs are billions of dollars more. And whether it was the Liberals who took us into the war, the Conservatives who extended the war with the help of the Liberals, they haven't been straight up with Canadians about the costs.”


Transparency in Ottawa indeed


From: Viva La Revolución | Registered: Apr 2004  |  IP: Logged
ocsi
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 13760

posted 09 October 2008 11:47 AM      Profile for ocsi     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
You know, the way the Liberals and the Conservatives always keep hammering away at the NDP by saying that the party doesn't know how to balance the budget, how the NDP wants to tax and spend and run deficits and other misinformation, etc. well, this could be pay back time for them.

The NDP needs to let Canadians know how it would have spent all those billions on social programmes, health care, education, creating green jobs, etc. etc..


From: somewhere over the rainbow | Registered: Jan 2007  |  IP: Logged
remind
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 6289

posted 09 October 2008 12:52 PM      Profile for remind     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by ocsi:
The NDP needs to let Canadians know how it would have spent all those billions on social programmes, health care, education, creating green jobs, etc. etc..

One needs only to look at the NDP platform and compare the costing out that we have put forth for our programs to see what would have been done with the money.


From: "watching the tide roll away" | Registered: Jun 2004  |  IP: Logged
writer
editor emeritus
Babbler # 2513

posted 09 October 2008 01:16 PM      Profile for writer     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Today, Paul Dewar (Ottawa-Centre) says Conservatives and Liberals must explain how they plan to pay for the Afghanistan mission to which they have committed Canada.

“Throughout this campaign, Stephen Harper and Stephane Dion have argued that New Democrat plans to invest in hiring doctors, in protecting jobs, in helping families are irresponsible, said Dewar. “Today, the Parliamentary Budget Office has revealed that the cost of the mission in Afghanistan has expanded from initial estimates of $8 billion for a six year mission to $18.1 billion.”

New Democrats have argued that in the face of deteriorating lives for average Afghans, of NATO leadership questioning our course, that it’s time for a new strategy for Afghanistan.

“If the mission is not working now then why are we continuing with three more years of the same?”, asked Dewar. “If this isn’t the right mission after 2011, it’s not the right mission now.”

Jack Layton and the NDP want to bring our troops home from Afghanistan in six months, instead of spending $18.1 billion dollars on this war for three more years. Rather than spending this money on war, the NDP will invest in hiring more doctors and more skilled jobs training here in Canada.

“And I think Stephen Harper and Stephane Dion need to explain to Canadians why we’re continuing with a mission that isn’t working and that Canadians can not afford.

ndp.ca


[ 09 October 2008: Message edited by: writer ]


From: tentative | Registered: Apr 2002  |  IP: Logged
Uncle John
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 14940

posted 09 October 2008 01:24 PM      Profile for Uncle John     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
It is much more profitable to make weapons and sell them to other countries, than to destroy them in warfare.

Canada made good money selling napalm to the Americans, while denouncing the Viet Nam war.

I think we should go back to this kind of profitable hypocrisy, and divert our own military to civil engineering projects in Canada.


From: Toronto | Registered: Feb 2008  |  IP: Logged
M. Spector
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 8273

posted 09 October 2008 02:54 PM      Profile for M. Spector   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Uncle John:
Canada made good money selling napalm to the Americans, while denouncing the Viet Nam war.
Only the first part of that sentence is correct.
quote:
Between 1965 and 1973 Canada sold more than $2.5 billion worth of war material to the Pentagon, with sales to the United States jumping 55 percent in 1965 alone. These transactions, according to Levant, were largely solicited by Ottawa. The final destination of many Canadian goods was Vietnam.

Canadian products shipped to Vietnam via the United States included ammunition, grenades, aircraft, chemical defoliants, navigation systems, weapons release computers, artillery shells, rocket warheads, and demolition materials. Even Canadian boots, green berets, and rye whiskey made it to Vietnam. As did large quantities of napalm. - Source



From: One millihelen: The amount of beauty required to launch one ship. | Registered: Feb 2005  |  IP: Logged
Fidel
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 5594

posted 09 October 2008 02:56 PM      Profile for Fidel     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
The two old parties are counting their lucky stars for the late release date on this. They might as well have said: "Never mind, it's none of the peons' business anyway. Now go and vote, you working class slobs!!"
From: Viva La Revolución | Registered: Apr 2004  |  IP: Logged
ocsi
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 13760

posted 09 October 2008 03:03 PM      Profile for ocsi     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Fidel:
The two old parties are counting their lucky stars for the late release date on this. [/b]

Yeah, it's late for this report but I keep hoping that someone (hopefully within the NDP) could get passionate about the war and the unbelievable cost. Several days of passionate oratory could change the course of this election.

[ 09 October 2008: Message edited by: ocsi ]


From: somewhere over the rainbow | Registered: Jan 2007  |  IP: Logged
Fidel
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 5594

posted 09 October 2008 03:05 PM      Profile for Fidel     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
And it must have been Lester B. who gave the high sign to spray agent orange over Gagetown, N.B. in the 60's.

And then there were nerve gas tests on Canadians that ended in the late 60's.

And our stoogeocrats were fully compliant with some mad CIA doctor's requests to experiment on Canadians as part of a subprogram to the larger "MK Ultra" program - extensive U.S. government research into mind control and torture said to have been conducted on a scale of the Manhatten Project. They experimented on women and children. Anything to please Uncle Sam.


From: Viva La Revolución | Registered: Apr 2004  |  IP: Logged
Webgear
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 9443

posted 09 October 2008 04:00 PM      Profile for Webgear     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Methodology for Estimating the Fiscal Impact of the Costs Incurred by the Government of Canada in Support of the Mission in Afghanistan

Fiscal Impact of the Canadian Mission in Afghanistan

Here is the reports.

I do not believe anyone has linked them yet.


From: Montgomery's Tavern | Registered: May 2005  |  IP: Logged
M. Spector
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 8273

posted 09 October 2008 09:48 PM      Profile for M. Spector   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
The Cost of the War and the End of Peacekeeping (.pdf)

- a new report from the Rideau Institute.

Cost of the Afghanistan war to March 2009: $17.2 billion
Cost of continuing until December 2011: $11.2 billion
TOTAL cost: $28.4 billion

In the absence of government figures on the wounded, the report estimates non-fatal casualties to the end of 2011, based on news reports to date, which the report says produces figures that are likely to be underestimates. (pp. 6-7)

They are shocking:

• 377 severe head injuries, costing an average of $2.6 million each in Veteran's health care benefits

• 113 amputations

• 453 other injuries too severe to allow return to duty

• 943 injured but able to return to duty

[ 09 October 2008: Message edited by: M. Spector ]


From: One millihelen: The amount of beauty required to launch one ship. | Registered: Feb 2005  |  IP: Logged
Webgear
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 9443

posted 14 October 2008 06:01 AM      Profile for Webgear     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
I think these numbers are way off.

I think the ratio should be 10 wounded for every 1 killed.

Remember most of the wounded soldiers could have mutliply injuries due to the effects of the most common wound (blast effects).

So this will limited the number of wounded.


From: Montgomery's Tavern | Registered: May 2005  |  IP: Logged
Fidel
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 5594

posted 14 October 2008 08:37 AM      Profile for Fidel     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Tories and Liberals alaways exaggerate military numbers a week before an election
From: Viva La Revolución | Registered: Apr 2004  |  IP: Logged

All times are Pacific Time  

   Close Topic    Move Topic    Delete Topic next oldest topic   next newest topic
Hop To:

Contact Us | rabble.ca | Policy Statement

Copyright 2001-2008 rabble.ca