Should they bring back conscription?

[cyrus]

Yeah I think you do. Your argument about Iraq'a leadership failed to understand that they where about to be attacked and as such the people of Iraq had little time to fight - on this point your wrong, I submit to you that the leadership of Iraq went to self presevation mode and hoped to weather the storm and it worked the first time - not so good the second time around. You then go on to point out the obvious, that China, NK etc would fight to the last man - well we don't know that to be true do we, since the leaderships of those countries have no experience in this new type of war.

So far your point is that Iraq chose to do go one way and some others nations might not - but at the end of the day blood will not deter a war. It may force all parties to spend more time looking for a political solution, but in the end when politics fail - war becomes an option.

So don't give me this garbage about re reading your post, maybe you should put a little more thought into this than getting all macho about how people die to the last man - the reality is that human beings will do everything to save their collected asses. It's thinking like yours that allows people to make war seem romantic or heroic, it is neither and is nothing more than the cold hard fact that war is politics by other means.


bbk

Someone said that the kill ratio, in favor of US army is about 1 to 10,000+ and used Iraq war as an example!
My reply was to point out that Iraq’s war was an exception to the rule because it was not a true war! It was a political miscalculation by Iraq's leadership from the beginning to the end thus it ended up being a total slaughter for Iraqis!
(It was not about not having enough time to prepare for a war as Iraq was already in a war mode when they invaded Kuwait; there Army was also in prime condition at that time with modern weaponry given to them by western countries because of the Iraq, Iran War!)
As for Sadam, he didn’t care that the diplomacy has ended and war has began.
As far as he was concerned it was all about politics, may be European would have step in etc. . . . furthermore he didn’t care about his people as he didn’t care that his army was in dire need of a war general at the time of war so he left them leaderless at a critical time! That shall not happen with NK, IRN or China if you know even a bit about their leadership or their state of mind!


Iraq's population would have fought if they were not abandoned by their leaders! Iraq soldiers would have done their job would they have had given the opportunity to do so! Instead they received orders to hide in the bunkers or retreat in masses in the face of Air strikes! I am sure given the situation at the end the result would have been the same but at least Iraqis would have claimed that they put up a fight and were defeated with honor! Look at the current situation in the Iraq which is a vivid example of Iraqi’s resistance!
As for your argument that war is politics by other means! Not exactly, as you like many others have fundamentally misunderstood what Clausewitz meant by politics / Politick!
Carl von Clausewitz’s philosophy of war was that war was an act of state policy waged in pursuit of specific political aim i.e., gaining resources, land or even for pleasure . . . etc.
However the deadliness and speed of the modern warfare has rendered this interpretation of war obsolete as well as the fact that he never explained why war happens!
War happens when diplomacy fails or never take place on the first place i.e., in case of pre emptive invasion . . . etc!
And yes war is romantic to those who remember it because those who fight and died in it did it for a cause!
Having said that, I would suggest that you should read the posts and try to understand the message within it, and if unclear, ask question for clarification instead of manipulating the words to make you seems intelligent / wise or misinterpret /misdirect the message itself because you happen to disagree with or dislike the writer for whatever reason!

 

[red]

The US doesn't need a draft, would do Canada some good though.

OTB

thats what this thread is about. Bringing back conscription in Canada. Not talking about the US at all.

 

[onthebottom]

thats what this thread is about. Bringing back conscription in Canada. Not talking about the US at all.

I assumed that when you used conscription instead of draft, but as all things Canadian they drift to US comparison.

OTB

 

[cyrus]

Only those who have enemies need to arm themselves up to the teeth!
Canada is loved all over the world and it is well known for its social companion and multi-cultural makeup as well as peacekeeping missions undertaken only by invitation. Only American wants us to believe that we have something to worry about from terrorists or foreign invasions so they can get us on board supporting their warmongering and policing agenda! No thank you!

 

[onthebottom]

Only those who have enemies need to arm themselves up to the teeth!
Canada is loved all over the world and it is well known for its social companion and multi-cultural makeup as well as peacekeeping missions undertaken only by invitation. Only American wants us to believe that we have something to worry about from terrorists or foreign invasions so they can get us on board supporting their warmongering and policing agenda! No thank you!

You keep believing that, I'm sure OBL forgives you for your work in Afghanistan......

OTB

 

[papasmerf]

Only those who have enemies need to arm themselves up to the teeth!
Canada is loved all over the world and it is well known for its social companion and multi-cultural makeup as well as peacekeeping missions undertaken only by invitation. Only American wants us to believe that we have something to worry about from terrorists or foreign invasions so they can get us on board supporting their warmongering and policing agenda! No thank you!

If you embrace freedom you must be willing to die for it, so as to preserve it for future generations.

 

[cyrus]

If you embrace freedom you must be willing to die for it, so as to preserve it for future generations.

Fair enough, but say that to Mr. Bush and his neo-con riches, unless you meant "must be willing to have others to die for it!"

 

[red]

Only those who have enemies need to arm themselves up to the teeth!
Canada is loved all over the world and it is well known for its social companion and multi-cultural makeup as well as peacekeeping missions undertaken only by invitation. Only American wants us to believe that we have something to worry about from terrorists or foreign invasions so they can get us on board supporting their warmongering and policing agenda! No thank you!

There is more benefits to the training of the young people than being able to defend the border. though that has its benefits

 

[Vietor]

Doesn't the Swiss system make sense? The rights of citizenship confer responsibilities. The Swiss believe that it is meaningful and honorable to be Swiss; therefore, they have long looked at military service and the obligation to bears arms in support of their nation as part of the price and honor of being Swiss. The question is whether Canadians have a similar regard for what it means to be Canadian?

 

[red]

Doesn't the Swiss system make sense? The rights of citizenship confer responsibilities. The Swiss believe that it is meaningful and honorable to be Swiss; therefore, they have long looked at military service and the obligation to bears arms in support of their nation as part of the price and honor of being Swiss. The question is whether Canadians have a similar regard for what it means to be Canadian?

its the land of chocolate

 

[papasmerf]

If someone attacks me - sure, I agree with you but why do we have to go out of our to get into a fight.



bbk

If ya bring it to me then run to hide.. Yup, no place is too far to find you.

 

[papasmerf]

Huh!!! Is that something like "I can run faster scared than you can mad"


bbk

Na

more like push hard enogh and you will find it was a mistake.

 

[Keebler Elf]

The general trend in modern western civilizations is to do away with mandatory military service, not to increase/broaden it. Obviously, the US bucks that trend although probably not for the best of reasons.

Canada has no need for conscription. None at all. We are a nation of peace that maintains as small a military as is necessary to fulfill our international obligations. Yes, some would say our military cannot even do that at the moment but I attribute that to simple gov't cutbacks that have occured over the past decade or so. With the latest budget, military spending and the size of the military have both been expanded (although not beyond previous levels; probably rightly so with the Cold War being over).

To be honest, it scares me when people say we need mandatory military service to "teach" us to be good citizens. Smells of fascism to me. Sure, when I was young(er) and foolish I bought into the idea that Canada needs a big, shiny army to be respected but I've learned over the years that we are respected for our fairness and diplomacy, not for our military. Besides, time and time again our country has proven itself reliable and more than capable when global conflict required our involvement.

We are a nation of peace that transforms itself into a nation of war when the situation calls for it. Always have, always will.

 

[onthebottom]

Elf,

I don't know how the US is "bucking the trend" when we have a 100% volenteer military?

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

 

[cyrus]

Elf,

I don't know how the US is "bucking the trend" when we have a 100% volenteer military?

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

OTB . . . you really have hard time understanding what people try to tell you or you have your head down deep in the sand . .. Ohhhh . . . well . . . what is the point . . . have it your way!

 

[onthebottom]

Cyrus,

I hesitate to tell you where your head is. What point didn't I understand?

OTB

 

[cyrus]

Cyrus,

I hesitate to tell you where your head is. What point didn't I understand?

OTB

What Keebler Elf and I both said in our posts was about the few very well known reasons why a nation like Canada does not need a Hugh military force . . . !
As for USA the reasons are exactly the opposite!

 

[Keebler Elf]

Elf,

I don't know how the US is "bucking the trend" when we have a 100% volenteer military?

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.

 

[Keebler Elf]

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.

Ahhh, American ignorance at its best.

Canada has troops deployed throughout the world. Afghanistan would just be an example of one of the largest troop deployments. A 500-soldier troop deployment for 6 months is a huge effort for a country such as ours that does not maintain a vast military machine. To somehow try and compare the military of the world's superpower with Canada's is ridiculous and moronic. Despite the fact that it's probably more than meeting our international obligations, we continue to send peacekeepers to other nations throughout the world to provide assistance.

And don't worry, I'm not patting myself on the back. I'm patting the backs of our soldiers serving their country well through their efforts around the world.

 

[someone]

Canada has troops deployed throughout the world. Afghanistan would just be an example of one of the largest troop deployments. A 500-soldier troop deployment for 6 months is a huge effort for a country such as ours that does not maintain a vast military machine. To somehow try and compare the military of the world's superpower with Canada's is ridiculous and moronic. Despite the fact that it's probably more than meeting our international obligations, we continue to send peacekeepers to other nations throughout the world to provide assistance.

Actually even by Canadian standards 500 is nothing. Just compare 500 to other Canadian deployments both recently in Afghanistan and the Balkans. Also, forget about American comparisons. They spend more than they should on their military. A better comparison is European NATO countries, almost all of whom spend more on their militaries as a percent of GDP (the only exceptions are Iceland with no military and Luxemburg)