This article is ridiculously weird. The global conflict has already arrived. Russia has invaded Ukraine. China’s war games around Taiwan and the rest of the Indo-Pacific, the US/Israel war in Iran … It’s important that Canada invests in its own defense industry and those of its allies, as someone has already said, rather than in buying from the US or China. But Canada has no other choice than investing in its defense.
Cool. Then you should really care about it done without corruption and waste, right?
Also, don’t you think that if the pro-peace crowd shuts the fuck up, and the only criticism of Carney’s policies comes from the Right then we would be entering a very hazardous territory, with the center being dragged ever rightward?
The article is incredibly useful from a systemic point of view because it allows us to calibrate the tension between maintaining and building security and the maintenance of internal democratic legitimacy. If you’re going to ask people to defend something, they get a say on what that something is supposed to be. People do get a say when the government goes all in on defence while cutting services. This is not a wartime command economy, nobody has said it is.
What a moronic point of view. Would you rather let our enemies roll over us? To think we aren’t in serious danger right now displays a total lack of awareness. What i want to see and tracked is Canada not spending money in the US.
Yeah, it’s an impressively poor article.
Public bidding/contracts are notorious for all sorts of shenanigans. Many governments have faces this problem. Insisting we get that sorted perfectly, a problem no government in the world seems to have tackled, before bracing ourselves islile refusing to wear a helmet until they make on that stops cars from hitting you.
Cool. Then you should really care about it done without corruption and waste, right? Because that’s what about half of this long article is about.
Absolutely. But, if the choice is doing it with corruption and waste versus talking about how to do it without, and not actually doing it, I’m going to have to come down the side of the former. So how, specifically, do we do it without corruption and waste, immediately?
I don’t know, I’m just a citizen. My civics education tells me that holding the government’s feet to the fire with critical articles like this one should have some effect by creating a public sphere where the government doesn’t have the cover of obscurity. Informed citizenry and all that.
This reeks of Ezra Levant, that piece of human excrement
Tamara Lorincz, PhD graduate, Balsillie School of International Affairs, Wilfrid Laurier University, and member of the Canadian Voice of Women for Peace and the Women’s International League for Peace and Freedom-Canada.
Publishing such a story and criticizing Canada for its defense spending while not even mentioning the wider threat landscape is disingenuous and fails to paint a realistic picture.
In 2025, the U.S. - again - spent the highest amount for defense.
Adjusted for purchasing power, China has the world’s second largest military budget. According to the World Bank, it spent 1.7% of its GDP for military in 2024 (compared to 1.3% in Canada). Beijing’s share of regional spending in the Indo-Pacific continues to increase as growth in Beijing’s military budget outpaces the wider region.
Although growth in Russia’s military expenditure moderated compared to previous years, it grew 3% in real terms in 2025, compared with 56.9% (!) in 2024. Nonetheless, expenditure still consumed over 7.3% of Russia’s GDP.
Peace is fine only if your adversaries pursue the same path. Unfortunately, this is not the case if we look at the world’s top-3 in military spending.
I will take your objections to the article, they are legitimate opinions, and we can agree or disagree about them.
I do take quite a bit of exception on your “disingenuous” accusation. If you really think that the article is “assuming a pose of naïveté to make a point or for deception”, you are making quite the ridiculous and wild accusation and you are not discussing in good faith.
Smart people can write bad articles, and sometimes they even get paid to do it
Sometimes they even do it ON PURPOSE, to undermine democracies
That’s quite the wild accusation against Ms. Lorincz there buddy.
It wasnt an accusation, merely saying that these things are possible
Noting you didnt comment on the “bad” article part
lolz
typical right wing hand wringing
Soon I might even say no-no words, if we keep discussing this
brace yourself
You’re operating under some pretty wild assumptions here and end up arguing in bad faith. I don’t think I want to follow you up the stupid hill you’re getting ready to die on.
Rabble is not a right wing outlet, very much the opposite. The article is not “bad” just because you say it is. And Lorincz signs the article as a member of VOW, Canada’s oldest pacifist feminist group since the 1960s, and as a member of WILPF, a truly venerable international anti-war feminist organization that was first formed in …1915 to protest WW1.
And here you are doing the oldest “red scare” tactic in the books, accusing peaceniks of being traitors. “Saying these things are possible”… What a weasely thing to say. If you want to say something say it.
So go ahead, say your no-no words, I’m well braced.
Any article that says Canadian defense spending is some how a larger risk to our sovereignty then what being said and done by the US president is either willfully misleading, or woefully under informed. War does not give a fuck if “you’d prefer it didn’t happen”
If we do not become a large enough threat to the Americans, we will be subjugated
