Should they bring back conscription?

[antaeus]

...
I also don't know that sending a whopping 500 troops to Afghanistan for 6 months would be meeting your international responsibilities, don't hurt yourself patting yourself on the back.

OTB

oh dear, otb, again with the lies. You claimed this months ago in various threads slagging canada. It wasn't true then and nothing has changed to make it true now. So what's going on? Mental instability or just enjoying yourself?

The UN sets troop contingement and engagement tour of duty cycles, not the countries themselves nor the in country troops, altho this sometimes changes on the fly once in country. How countries fulfill committment, with one duty or rotating duties is up to them. Again as previously stated, canada relieved german or italian (don't remember, but white and english speaking capable), and were in turn relieved by bangladeshi I think, and on and on and relieved by canadians again...

Yet you continually come on here slagging canada with this false information and complain when people slag the US with shrub and amerikkka..... Yes, fair's fair, but there is a difference between disagreeble opinion and false-information condemnation. Unless you are exposing some sort of personal historical recidivism to further a cause. In which case more to the mental instability side. But more likely, you just don't know what you're talking about.

Same as you, came for the reviews stuck around for the interesting convo, yourself included. But when you're caught lying...

 

[Keebler Elf]

Actually even by Canadian standards 500 is nothing. Just compare 500 to other Canadian deployments both recently in Afghanistan and the Balkans.

No, 500 is not nothing. It's actually quite significant. According to the link below, Canada has almost 1,600 troops deployed abroad as of Feb 25, 2005. Of those, 954 are in Afghanistan. That's around 60%, which is most definitely something. Even 500 troops would be around 30%, again definitely something.

http://www.forces.gc.ca/site/operations/current_ops_e.asp

 

[WoodPeckr]

That's so laughable a statement it hurts. You go ask the boys over in Iraq how many of them "volunteered" to be there. Go ask the national guard if they "volunteered" to go to Iraq. Go ask the impoverished blacks in the military if they "volunteered" to be cannonfodder for the rest of America. Go ask the soldier whose enlistment period is up but was forced to remain in the military if he "volunteered" for it. A "volunteer" military is what people who have other options call service by people who do not.

To spell it out for you, the US military is desparate to maintain/increase its troop levels despite the fact that a very significant portion want out and want out now. And I don't blame them in the least.

Unfortunately this aspect of that 100% 'volunteer US military' is just unfathomable to many in the GOP. They tend to totally discount that 'forced' aspect many wearing the uniform are being subjected to right now and still maintain this is just another definition of 'volunteer' as they define it. Another 'fall-back' argument of the GOP is to say, well since you are in it's your 'duty' to volunteer for the duration.....geez where did we hear that 'duty' thingy before.......

 

[someone]

No, 500 is not nothing. It's actually quite significant. According to the link below, Canada has almost 1,600 troops deployed abroad as of Feb 25, 2005. Of those, 954 are in Afghanistan. That's around 60%, which is most definitely something. Even 500 troops would be around 30%, again definitely something.

http://www.forces.gc.ca/site/operations/current_ops_e.asp

The fact is that 1 600 is very low even by recent Canadian standards so your talking bout 60% of a low number. 1 600 barely adds up to two small battalions. Check back just a couple of years and you will find that Canada had more than 1 600 in the Balkans alone. Hell, when I was in the military, Canada used to keep a permanent brigade in Europe. That is no longer needed but the fact that the Canadian forces are tiny for a country this size. As I said, the only NATO countries that spend less as a percentage of GDP are Luxemburg and Iceland.

 

[someone]

The UN sets troop contingement and engagement tour of duty cycles, not the countries themselves nor the in country troops, altho this sometimes changes on the fly once in country.

Afghanistan is a NATO operation, not a UN operation.

 

[Keebler Elf]

As I said, the only NATO countries that spend less as a percentage of GDP are Luxemburg and Iceland.

So? That sounds about right to me.

 

[onthebottom]

oh dear, otb, again with the lies. You claimed this months ago in various threads slagging canada. It wasn't true then and nothing has changed to make it true now. So what's going on? Mental instability or just enjoying yourself?

You're right, I was wrong on the number (1,900 - http://www.cbc.ca/news/background/afghanistan/stillnopeace.html). I'll ignore the junior grade personal attack.

The UN sets troop contingement and engagement tour of duty cycles, not the countries themselves nor the in country troops, altho this sometimes changes on the fly once in country. How countries fulfill committment, with one duty or rotating duties is up to them. Again as previously stated, canada relieved german or italian (don't remember, but white and english speaking capable), and were in turn relieved by bangladeshi I think, and on and on and relieved by canadians again...

You don't suppose that a countries CAPABILITIES have anything to do with their troop contingent and duty tour do you? This is a chicken / egg problem, you'll never be asked to do anything substantive until you can.

Yet you continually come on here slagging canada with this false information and complain when people slag the US with shrub and amerikkka..... Yes, fair's fair, but there is a difference between disagreeble opinion and false-information condemnation. Unless you are exposing some sort of personal historical recidivism to further a cause. In which case more to the mental instability side. But more likely, you just don't know what you're talking about.

Same as you, came for the reviews stuck around for the interesting convo, yourself included. But when you're caught lying...

I was wrong, I've corrected myself with a reputable source and said I was wrong - the latter would put me in a small group on TERB. I stand by my conclusion and opinion however.

Can’t believe YYC has not weighted in on the hefty issue of spelling yet, or perhaps he only spell checks posts he disagrees with…..

OTB

 

[onthebottom]

So? That sounds about right to me.

Small insignificant countries.... I can see the parallel.

LOL

You're a G8 country, act like it for heavens sake.

OTB

 

[Peeping Tom]

It is pathetic and insignificant - a number small enough to place it in the shadows of the real players and without voice in the command structure. Of all States, Canada is closest to America in prosperity. At 10 % population compared to America, Canada should be able to field at least 20 000 troops at any given time. Furthermore, the discrepency is all the more amazing considering of those few we do send their equipment is little better than a shovel. Pathetic indeed.

It's actually quite significant. According to the link below, Canada has almost 1,600 troops deployed abroad as of Feb 25, 2005. Of those, 954 are in Afghanistan.

 

[red]

It is pathetic and insignificant - a number small enough to place it in the shadows of the real players and without voice in the command structure. Of all States, Canada is closest to America in prosperity. At 10 % population compared to America, Canada should be able to field at least 20 000 troops at any given time. Furthermore, the discrepency is all the more amazing considering of those few we do send their equipment is little better than a shovel. Pathetic indeed.

call your MP or write them a letter. If the politicians don't hear about the support for an increased military- it won't happen

 

[Peeping Tom]

Calling my MP won't alter the nature of this discussion.

 

[oldjones]

It is pathetic and insignificant - a number small enough to place it in the shadows of the real players and without voice in the command structure. Of all States, Canada is closest to America in prosperity. At 10 % population compared to America, Canada should be able to field at least 20 000 troops at any given time. Furthermore, the discrepency is all the more amazing considering of those few we do send their equipment is little better than a shovel. Pathetic indeed.

Instead of dividing US troop strength by 10 to determine what Canada "should" have, why not multiply our troop strength by 10 to determine what the US should have? At those levels maybe they wouldn't be so eager to anoint themselves world policeman and might actually learn to play well with others instead of trying to bully the world into doing it their way.
Meantime, as Georgie spends his way to the biggest deficit in years, it's arguable whether the US can afford the armed forcees you're saying we should benchmark ourselves by.

 

[Peeping Tom]

The consensus here, across partisan lines, is that Candian troop levels are insufficient for the purpose of having a voice on the international level. Perhaps the Candian elite wishes to be marginal, however many posters here disagree. To have a presence, merely matching US participation alone is insufficient - a doubling should be in order. Regarding costs, the US military budget including additional discretionary spending for Iraq is but chump change compared to the overall economy, courtesy of the Bush boom.

 

[someone]

Instead of dividing US troop strength by 10 to determine what Canada "should" have, why not multiply our troop strength by 10 to determine what the US should have? At those levels maybe they wouldn't be so eager to anoint themselves world policeman and might actually learn to play well with others instead of trying to bully the world into doing it their way.
Meantime, as Georgie spends his way to the biggest deficit in years, it's arguable whether the US can afford the armed forcees you're saying we should benchmark ourselves by.

I think that you are very right in suggesting that the U.S. over spends on the military and cannot afford to do so indefinitely. Moreover, I suspect that part of the reason they went into Iraq was to justify their military expenditures (it is hard to find any plausible reasons for their going into Iraq). Thus I agree that it would be ridiculous to suggest Canada bring its expenditures up to the American level. However, that does not change the fact that Canadian military expenditures are too low. European NATO countries would be a much better benchmark.

 

[Peeping Tom]

Then why did euro NATO states turn to the US for force during their illegal Balkan war? It seems their spending wasn't in line with their ambitions - it will be funny next time they beg for help, an empire without an army.

 

[someone]

Then why did euro NATO states turn to the US for force during their illegal Balkan war? It seems their spending wasn't in line with their ambitions - it will be funny next time they beg for help, an empire without an army.

How the hell did you get the idea that the Balkan war was illegal? Clearly you have Bush and Clinton mixed up (Bush is the more incompetent one).
Stabilizing the Balkans was in everyones interest and hence something all NATO members needed to contribute to. The who idea of NATO is to take into account that collective security is what economists sometimes refer to as an international public good.

 

[Peeping Tom]

The instigators of the crminial Balkan conflict didn't even bother going to the UN and had a much smaller coalition compared to Bush's for Iraq. Furthermore, Bush did his best making a case to the UN. So, there you have it - both are "legal" or "illegal". Either way, the Bush action is more just.

BTW the US should follow international law and send Clinton off to serve his sentence.

 

[red]

Calling my MP won't alter the nature of this discussion.

no it won't do anything about this discussion, but if you only want to gripe about the situation and not do anything about then you are going about it right

 

[someone]

The instigators of the crminial Balkan conflict didn't even bother going to the UN and had a much smaller coalition compared to Bush's for Iraq. Furthermore, Bush did his best making a case to the UN. So, there you have it - both are "legal" or "illegal". Either way, the Bush action is more just.

BTW the US should follow international law and send Clinton off to serve his sentence.

You can’t be seriously trying to compare every one of the US’s traditional NATO allies with the ‘coalition’ in Iraq. Of course, given that you’re the boiling in oil guy (you never did respond to my questions about that post), I guess it is possible. The fact is that the Balkans and Iraq are very different situations. It was in the interest of every NATO member, including the United States, to get involved in the Balkans, unfortunately, Russia was going to veto any security council resolution. No one has yet come up with a convincing reason why invading Iraq was in anyone’s interest, including those of the U.S. As far as Bush’s case to the UN, I don’t even think that Bush was stupid enough to really believe his own case.

 

[onthebottom]

You can’t be seriously trying to compare every one of the US’s traditional NATO allies with the ‘coalition’ in Iraq. Of course, given that you’re the boiling in oil guy (you never did respond to my questions about that post), I guess it is possible. The fact is that the Balkans and Iraq are very different situations. It was in the interest of every NATO member, including the United States, to get involved in the Balkans, unfortunately, Russia was going to veto any security council resolution. No one has yet come up with a convincing reason why invading Iraq was in anyone’s interest, including those of the U.S. As far as Bush’s case to the UN, I don’t even think that Bush was stupid enough to really believe his own case.

How was the action in the Balkans in US interests? What threat did the Balkans represent to the US? Isn't any military action not ordained by the UN illegal (at least listening to some on this board).

OTB