Perhaps it's too early to worry but when I hear that under Paul Martin we are going to move closer to the americans and beef up our military, I wonder if we'll end up taking a part in future US adventures like Iraq. Chretien is no hero of mine but at least he had the good sense to keet us out of that mess. And one thing about having a weak military is that we can't be dragged into much. 'So sorry GWB, like to help but no can do!'
Paul Martin's Foreign Policy - A worry
- Thread starter jwmorrice
- Start date
I don't know what we could have contributed to Iraq anyway,our forces are stretched thin as it is. I am certainly in favour of getting rid of those 50 year old helicopters.
What we mostly need in Ottawa--Are people with the brains to rebuild our Forces.And not" Nuckleheads"who go out and buy Junk like the Striker.A true piece of shit.Almost as bad as the British Sub.
The journey starts with the first step--and we just keep going backwards.
Just buying junk,so we do not piss off the people in Washington is not the way to go.
We need to bring our people home,and burn those Blue Helmets..
The journey starts with the first step--and we just keep going backwards.
Just buying junk,so we do not piss off the people in Washington is not the way to go.
We need to bring our people home,and burn those Blue Helmets..
I don't think Martin will go overboard or anything - he seems to have a good head on his shoulders and a big brain to go along with the package. I personally think that Canada / US relations should be better than they are so I see nothing wrong with mvoing a little closer to them.
Under the Chretien administration, Canada has moved so far away from the US that we're on a lesser standing than the Mexicans. This is patently ridiculous. Canada is by far the biggest trading partner with the US, yet we still have to endure lengthy delays when crossing the border, and the PM seems to have difficulty just picking up the phone and calling the President.
I don't think for a moment that Canadian foreign policy should mirror that of the US. But we should be closer than we are. We should have very direct and open lines of communication between our two nations. Our PM should be able to openly disagree with the President (and vice versa) without fearing any repercussions down the road. Any bilateral issues should be quietly resolved before they even really hit the press. Softwood lumber anyone? That issues has been dragging on forever! And for what? We need the trade and the US needs our lumber. Surely, reasonable people can come to a reasonable solution to the perceived issue. If Canada and the US were closer, there would be pressure from both above and within to seek these resolutions much quicker. Remember they guy in Quebec who crossed the road to buy gas in the US then got arrested for crossing the border illegally because he had a hunting rifle in the truck? Crap like that shouldn't even happen. If our two nations were closer, officials could have cleared up that misunderstanding very quickly.
Closer ties with your immediate neighbours is a good thing. The Europeans understand this - they've aligned their currencies, their economies to a certain extent, and have essentially eliminated borders. Goods, services and people flow freely within the European community now. Why shouldn't the same be true between Canada & the US?
As for the military, Mr. Martin is right - it does need to be beefed up. It's a crying shame that a country such as ours sends troops in harm's way with antiquated, minimal equipment. Where are those helicopters? What of the dwindling Canadian Air Force with its out of date F18s? Will the navy ever be able to sortie more than 2 ships at a time? Canadian land claims extend all the way to the (geographic) North Pole. But we don't even have an icebreaker than can patrol the frigid Arctic passageways to enforce our claim. Some years ago (during the Reagan years I think) a US warship transited the Northwest passage and there was diddly squat we could do about it. Now I don't think we should have taken shots at a US warship or anything, but at least we cold have shadowed the US ship all the way just to fly the flag and let them know we have certain capabilities as well. But we did nothing because we didn't and still don't have the capability to do something.
Under the Chretien administration, Canada has moved so far away from the US that we're on a lesser standing than the Mexicans. This is patently ridiculous. Canada is by far the biggest trading partner with the US, yet we still have to endure lengthy delays when crossing the border, and the PM seems to have difficulty just picking up the phone and calling the President.
I don't think for a moment that Canadian foreign policy should mirror that of the US. But we should be closer than we are. We should have very direct and open lines of communication between our two nations. Our PM should be able to openly disagree with the President (and vice versa) without fearing any repercussions down the road. Any bilateral issues should be quietly resolved before they even really hit the press. Softwood lumber anyone? That issues has been dragging on forever! And for what? We need the trade and the US needs our lumber. Surely, reasonable people can come to a reasonable solution to the perceived issue. If Canada and the US were closer, there would be pressure from both above and within to seek these resolutions much quicker. Remember they guy in Quebec who crossed the road to buy gas in the US then got arrested for crossing the border illegally because he had a hunting rifle in the truck? Crap like that shouldn't even happen. If our two nations were closer, officials could have cleared up that misunderstanding very quickly.
Closer ties with your immediate neighbours is a good thing. The Europeans understand this - they've aligned their currencies, their economies to a certain extent, and have essentially eliminated borders. Goods, services and people flow freely within the European community now. Why shouldn't the same be true between Canada & the US?
As for the military, Mr. Martin is right - it does need to be beefed up. It's a crying shame that a country such as ours sends troops in harm's way with antiquated, minimal equipment. Where are those helicopters? What of the dwindling Canadian Air Force with its out of date F18s? Will the navy ever be able to sortie more than 2 ships at a time? Canadian land claims extend all the way to the (geographic) North Pole. But we don't even have an icebreaker than can patrol the frigid Arctic passageways to enforce our claim. Some years ago (during the Reagan years I think) a US warship transited the Northwest passage and there was diddly squat we could do about it. Now I don't think we should have taken shots at a US warship or anything, but at least we cold have shadowed the US ship all the way just to fly the flag and let them know we have certain capabilities as well. But we did nothing because we didn't and still don't have the capability to do something.
Do you have first hand knowledge that the stryker is a piece of shit??My brother in law who proudly services in the Army in an Armour regiment has welcomed the purchase.thighspy said:
Are the subs really a piece of crap like you have said? A navy buddy of mine has noted that after some modifications and repairs the brit subs we purchased are good.
So, let us not become a slave to what the right wing media tries to sell us all the time about these types of things.
Hmm, some folks want us to beef up the military but to what end? What are the u-boats for? What would we do with new fighter jets?
I can see a point in getting more icebreakers. Yes, with those we could patrol the northern reaches of our country and add to our claims of sovereignty there. Replacing the rescue helicopters is another obvious move.
However, the other toys?? I just don't see the point. And if we did get them, there'd always be the temptation to use them, especially when Uncle Sam came callin'.
I can see a point in getting more icebreakers. Yes, with those we could patrol the northern reaches of our country and add to our claims of sovereignty there. Replacing the rescue helicopters is another obvious move.
However, the other toys?? I just don't see the point. And if we did get them, there'd always be the temptation to use them, especially when Uncle Sam came callin'.
IMO, our military does need some help. I think we should correct glaring deficiencies, but forget about trying to be all things to all people. Instead, we should try to be very good at a few things that we can afford. That way we can still make meaningfull contributions to international efforts.
Ie. we have some of the very best snipers in the world. A small contigent of Canadians are in Afghanistan, and have set world records for distance kills. Like over 2400m!! I didn't believe that the first time I read it, but that is exactly what I'm talking about. A handful of well trained soldiers were able to help protect hundreds (even thousands) of troops by taking out enemy mortar positions. Amazing work!
Snipers, land mine clearing, peacekeeping.
Ie. we have some of the very best snipers in the world. A small contigent of Canadians are in Afghanistan, and have set world records for distance kills. Like over 2400m!! I didn't believe that the first time I read it, but that is exactly what I'm talking about. A handful of well trained soldiers were able to help protect hundreds (even thousands) of troops by taking out enemy mortar positions. Amazing work!
Snipers, land mine clearing, peacekeeping.
The Canadian military seems to be deployed on missions of limited scope these days. Mostly it seems we're sending our troops out for peacekeeping, enforcement of UN sanctions (boarding of ships for inspection) etc. That's all fine, but the execution of these missions still requires the whole package deal.jwmorrice said:
What better way to conduct surveillance of ships than with a sub? The "bad guys" won't even know it's there until it's too late. What better way to patrol the deep Arctic than under the ice-pack?
A strong air force is also important to troop deployment. If you control the air above, it's much easier to move the troops on the land below. Perhaps we could make airborne surveillance a strong point which would allow us to monitor roads etc to tell if new mines have been planted. We could also look at the lay of the land ahead and let the ground troops know what's coming.
Though I have zero desire to see Canadian military expenses moving into high gear, the reality is that we send our troops into harm's way when shit happens. The trouble is, we don't know when said shit is going to happen nor where it will happen. To that end, we should be prepared for most eventualities. This means a strong military on land, in the air and on (and below) the sea.
Ah, the rich and isolationist Canada. Such a brave stance you take thighspy. As a rich country it may occur to you that you have some responsibilities - one of those would be peace keeping. You don't have to be a US lap dog or follow our policies but you should be able to contribute where YOU feel the cause is justified. Isn't there a famous quote that all evil requires is for good men to do nothing - that is the strategy that you are suggesting.thighspy said:
OTB
I wouldn't hold my breath if I were you. I think you forgot Australia, Spain, Poland... in your list of countries that followed Bush.Ross said:
Perhaps your next PM will be more engaging with the US than your last. Now if you just had a real multi party democracy....
OTB
Snake Pliskin said:
Your right about the world record. A JTF-2 sniper has the longest confirmed sniper kill in the world at 2436 meters. He accomplished this feat against the elements using specially handloaded ammo i.e. he made the ammo himself using the right mix of gunpowder and a soft point bullet
The Stryker will be a perfect fit for the military as it moves forward to be a medium light reapid response force that will work hand in hand with Amercian heavy forces. This is the only way we can go at present to help fill a gap that the American's would like us to fill.Winston said:
Heavy tanks just arn't needed as much as they use to be. The same can be said for the heavy bomber have gone by the wayside and in their place lighter more rapid multi-funcition fighter-bomber air craft.
So
OTB
I don't think you’re in a position to judge large or powerful armies, if you have to hitch hike to battle you've forgotten something.Ross said:
So we have to buy our friends? If that were so we'd be paying a bit too much for you at the moment.Ross said:
OTB
W
WhOiSyOdAdDy?
I agree that Canada's military should expand to meet the peacekeeping needs of the world. But that's where it should end. There is no need for Canada to build a military arsenal so large that it could tempt our leader's self-interests and make aggression it's only function. It's become our responsiblity to express peace through example, not force.scubadoo said:
d
As much as I love armour, Canada has no need for tanks anymore. Our role in the world is that of peacekeepers and tanks don't fit the bill. The same can be said about our heavy artillery. Time to put that money to better use in APCs, Strykers, Humvees, Coyotes, etc.
ah.....
And so it goes. My point was, with a bit of sarcasm matching yours, that to say Australia joined a war simply for trade reasons is a bit simplistic. While our country uses both the carrot and stick to get what it wants internationally (as does every country) I think it’s a bit simplistic to say we bought our allies.
OTB
Is this the type of name calling you were referring to?Ross said:
Or was it this type?Ross said:
Is this a better example?Ross said:
Or this?Ross said:
And so it goes. My point was, with a bit of sarcasm matching yours, that to say Australia joined a war simply for trade reasons is a bit simplistic. While our country uses both the carrot and stick to get what it wants internationally (as does every country) I think it’s a bit simplistic to say we bought our allies.
OTB
