The End of the Canadian Military?

[onthebottom]

Re: Re: Re: Re: I don't think

I reject your characterization. I would suggest it isn't thinking small. It's thinking in our own best interests and not that of Washington, etc. For a small nation to seek the approval of others by catering to their wishes would truly be "chicken *hit".

The point is you should grow up, stop thinking of yourself as a small country and pursue your own agenda. The reason you're stuck in our shadow is you have no capability to do anything else - other than whine. I have no desire to see Canada do what the US tells it to do, I desire to see Canada pursue it's own interests. It's my belief that your interests are aligned enough with ours that most of the time you will do good.

The question of how long "American policy will be much more aggressive - weather (sic!) you like it or not" is an interesting one. I would suggest however, that American foreign policy is not impervious to learning from experience. Reversals of fortune would likely have the salutary effect I mentioned.

jwm

I would agree but we are on the offensive and will stay there to some extent for quite a while.

OTB

 

[jwmorrice]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: I don't think

The point is you should grow up, stop thinking of yourself as a small country and pursue your own agenda.

We are a small country in many respects but yes, we need to pursue our own agenda. I've suggested one.

The reason you're stuck in our shadow is you have no capability to do anything else - other than whine.

You can characterise Canada as whining but I don't see that as advancing a discussion of Canada's military or foreign policies. And let us be reasonable here. Canada is stuck in the US shadow simply because it is situated beside a great power. Surely that is to state the obvious. Makes me recall the Mexican sentiment: 'Poor Mexico. So far from god and so close to the United States.' Of course, maybe those south of the Rio Grande just happen to be whiners too.

jwm

 

[onthebottom]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: I don't think

.... Makes me recall the Mexican sentiment: 'Poor Mexico. So far from god and so close to the United States.' Of course, maybe those south of the Rio Grande just happen to be whiners too.

jwm

If we closed the border for 30 days we'd hear some whining.

OTB

 

[*d*]

I think that's the general topic of this thread, what do you need for peace keeping.

OTB

As I said in my original post, the results of aggression by countries with large offensive military departments, are keeping Canadian peacekeepers excessively busy. More peacekeeping efforts are needed but not in the way you might think. I suggest Canada should lean less towards clean-up duty, after the fact, and more towards war prevention. Canada has a moral responsibility to diplomatically inform the deceived people of countries, like the US, that their government's huge offensive 'war on terrorism' is not at all what it appears. In fact, their aggressive policies have only perpetuated more global terror. The reason for their aggression has little to do with homeland security and everything to do with the spread of a twisted form of democracy. The need to force democracy is easily convincing because of the wonderful words like freedom and liberation that describe it, but in reality this style of democracy is only self-serving plutocracy. It's for the prosperity of the few with the power to influence, and not at all for the people at large. I agree we need greater peacekeeping efforts but with education, not with more troops.

 

[marvin]

Retracing the thread...

I think that's the general topic of this thread, what do you need for peace keeping.

Nothing personal but you're wrong for several substantive reasons.

1) The thread started with reference to a couple of interesting commentaries on the future of Canada's military. Specifically, these articles note that the material component of the CAF will degrade so much in the next few years that there will be an air force without planes, a navy without ships, and an army with guns and armor.

2) The only mention of "peacekeeping" was reference in the think tank paper to what was called "stability campaigns." That was plainly a reference to the American led coalition of the willing in Iraq. Such aggressive war-making and military occupation has nothing to do with peacekeeping in the manner espoused by the father of peacekeeping, Canadian Prime Minister Lester B. Pearson.

3) The fact that Bush Jr. has successfully implied to at least some Americans that activities in Iraq constitute peacekeeping suggests that his speech writers are better than I would have given them credit. I still think Bush Sr. had better writers working from him, though.

4) In Canada, the distinction between UN led peacekeeping and US led stability campaigns is still clear.

Now, it is clear that Canada no longer takes the lead in peacekeeping either. That is a political decision. Essentially, Canada is moving towards a more isolationist stance internationally (at least with respect to conflict). Whether this is a sensible policy is debateable. In a sense, Canada is taking a different path than the US on this policy point and I think neither policy is particularly wise.

 

[james t kirk]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: I don't think

If we closed the border for 30 days we'd hear some whining.

OTB

Yeah, especially from you and your fellow yankies when you have no natural gas to heat your homes, or power your factories, or power your generating stations.

Lest we forget that the USA imports 40% of its natural gas and virtually 100% of it comes from Canada.

Go ahead, close the boarder for 30 days tough guy. Our economy will take a nose punch, but you will freeze to death in the dark.

Read this tough guy....

http://www.usatoday.com/money/industries/energy/2003-06-10-greenspan-natural-gas_x.htm

Oh, and not to mention that the USA imports more crude oil from Canada than it does from Saudi Arabia. Have fun paying $20.00 a gallon.

Nyaaaa

Now thank me for being a good neighbour and keeping you alive. Come on, thank me.

 

[papasmerf]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: I don't think

Go ahead, close the boarder for 30 days tough guy. Our economy will take a nose punch, but you will freeze to death in the dark.

We would do well in Buffalo. Power is no issue and with Tony MYASSISYELLOW as Mayor, Jim Pitts (no need to make fun of him) and Blow Geemamma, more then enough hot air for the winter and beyond.

 

[onthebottom]

JTK

If you would have bothered to read "tough guy" the context of my statement you would have realized I was speaking of the Mexican boarder. A little sensitive are we?

As for economics - you sell us comodities, like any good colony would (but you're used to that status) and we keep your economy alive. Your biggest competitive advantage is that you're right next door - not that impressive.

OTB

 

[*d*]

Re: JTK

As for economics - you sell us comodities, like any good colony would (but you're used to that status) and we keep your economy alive. Your biggest competitive advantage is that you're right next door - not that impressive.

OTB

And Canada keeps 12% of the US's economy alive. That accounts for the livelihood of about 30 million Americans. The same number of people as the Canadian side of the border. So this kind of stuff is a non-issue. US/Canada trade effects the same number of people in both countries.

 

[Ripper77]

The Defence Management Studies Program (DMSP) at Queen's University has published a paper discussing the possibility that Canada will be without Armed Forces within a few years. The crux of this argument is that years of government neglect will result in Canada becoming the first major power to disarm itself.

http://www.queensu.ca/sps/DMSP/claxton4.html

CBC is carrying the story here: http://www.cbc.ca/stories/2003/12/03/forces031203

My initial thoughts (I've only read the first bit of the paper) is that there is a hint of conflict of interest here. The DMSP was set up at Queen's with the help of the Department of Defence. It is possible then that this paper is one-sided and self-serving.

On the other hand, the declining state of the Canadian Armed Forces is well documented and common knowledge amongst Canadians. (Helicopters anyone?) What I find interesting is the author's perspective that the next government will inevitably face a crisis that simply cannot be avoided. This crisis will leave Canada unable to fulfil any commitments on the international front and may very well see Canada without a military that can handle even domestic affairs.

Comments? (No flames please.)

I suggest you turn-around the situation,and build up your military.In this day and age of terrorists you guys and gals to the North will be a sitting duck.Especially when your influx of immigrants are coming from the middle east.

 

[wet/dry vac]

Isn't Canada supposed to be like Switzerland?
And do the Swiss have an army?
- furthermore, are their weapons Swiss Army knives?
See even the Swiss have better weapons than us.

 

[james t kirk]

Actually, the swiss do have an army.

In fact, they have manditory military service.

OTB, we sell you alot more than commodities and yu know it. I just used the energy one as an example to rattle your cage a bit. And you are right, i didn't read the mexican angle.

Bottom line, the US is not an island like so many yanks would like to believe.

 

[scubadoo]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: I don't think

If we closed the border for 30 days we'd hear some whining.

OTB

If that would be reversed we'd hear the yanks whining. No oil ( Canada is the single largest forgeign country that supplies oil to the US ), no natural gas, no electricity. Think about it. Our two countries are so integrated it's unbelieve to think one could do with out the other.

On a side note, I'm still waiting to see these WMD that George Bush used as his reason for going to war in Iraq.

 

[onthebottom]

I think

Actually, the swiss do have an army.

In fact, they have manditory military service.

OTB, we sell you alot more than commodities and yu know it. I just used the energy one as an example to rattle your cage a bit. And you are right, i didn't read the mexican angle.

Bottom line, the US is not an island like so many yanks would like to believe.

most "yanks" would like to go back to pre WWII days of being an island - not going to happen. Global trade is here to stay no matter what the idiot demonstraitors think.

Yes, you do sell us lot's of stuff, I was just shaking your cage as in return.

OTB

 

[onthebottom]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: I don't think

If that would be reversed we'd hear the yanks whining. No oil ( Canada is the single largest forgeign country that supplies oil to the US ), no natural gas, no electricity. Think about it. Our two countries are so integrated it's unbelieve to think one could do with out the other.

On a side note, I'm still waiting to see these WMD that George Bush used as his reason for going to war in Iraq.

As a fellow diver you should know well enough to read the entire post, the whining was from Mexico (and probably from California) if we closed the MEXICAN boarder. Jeez you guys are sensitive. Not like no one else would sell us oil.

Arn't we all.

OTB

 

[onthebottom]

Do you think

As I said in my original post, the results of aggression by countries with large offensive military departments, are keeping Canadian peacekeepers excessively busy. More peacekeeping efforts are needed but not in the way you might think. I suggest Canada should lean less towards clean-up duty, after the fact, and more towards war prevention. Canada has a moral responsibility to diplomatically inform the deceived people of countries, like the US, that their government's huge offensive 'war on terrorism' is not at all what it appears. In fact, their aggressive policies have only perpetuated more global terror. The reason for their aggression has little to do with homeland security and everything to do with the spread of a twisted form of democracy. The need to force democracy is easily convincing because of the wonderful words like freedom and liberation that describe it, but in reality this style of democracy is only self-serving plutocracy. It's for the prosperity of the few with the power to influence, and not at all for the people at large. I agree we need greater peacekeeping efforts but with education, not with more troops.

education would work with North Korea? How about Bosnia -was that just failure to communicate? Pull your head out, the only thing that guarantees peace is power (why has there been peace in Europe for 60 years?). The only thing that restores peace is power. You sound like the President of the Neville Chamberlain fan club. *d* gives us peace in our time with persuasive argument. I need some of what ever it is you smoke because the real world is a real pain the *ss sometimes.

There is a nice parallel between your post and the article I referenced about Canada moving from a real power to a moral power.

OTB

 

[Keebler Elf]

Personally I think that our Armed Forces should put a motirtorium on International work (or at least put it to a bare mininmum) and pull all our guys & Gals back to Canada. They can keep them busy by replacing all the security guards at airports and other ports of call.

Yeah, I'm sure our soldiers would love to be told they're now stuck doing security detail. Real considerate of you.

Soldiers thrive on challenge and they're not complaining about peacekeeping; they're complaining about how often they have to do it.

 

[Keebler Elf]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: I don't think

The point is you should grow up, stop thinking of yourself as a small country and pursue your own agenda. The reason you're stuck in our shadow is you have no capability to do anything else - other than whine. I have no desire to see Canada do what the US tells it to do, I desire to see Canada pursue it's own interests. It's my belief that your interests are aligned enough with ours that most of the time you will do good.

OTB

We do pursue our own interests. The fact that you, as an American, don't like what those interests are proves it.

 

[jwmorrice]

Appeasement

Pull your head out, the only thing that guarantees peace is power (why has there been peace in Europe for 60 years?). The only thing that restores peace is power. You sound like the President of the Neville Chamberlain fan club. *d* gives us peace in our time with persuasive argument. I need some of what ever it is you smoke because the real world is a real pain the *ss sometimes.OTB

Yeah, appeasement doesn't work when you're facing some kind of lying, psychopathic, S.O.B who rejects any idea of compromise and is hell-bent on your destruction. Oh say, that reminds me, here's a link on the US rebuffing a last minute Iraqi attempt to avoid war. http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/3247461.stm

Kim Jung Il, please take note.

jwm

 

[james t kirk]

Re: Do you think

You sound like the President of the Neville Chamberlain fan club.
OTB

Actually, truth be told, it was Neville Chamerlain who is more responsible for Britain's success in WW2 than Churchill.

When Chamberlain came to power, the British armed forces had sunk to all time lows.

Under him, they began a massive rebuilding programme, including the design and production of the Hurricane (the plane that saved Britain), the design of the Spitfire (the plane that took the Germans to task) and the design of the Lancaster Bomber (the heaviest Bomber of WW2 that took the fight into Germany)

He also built up land and sea forces (commissioning new battleships, frigates and destroyers), and radar installations.

As much as i admire Churchill, he basically got on the horse when the horse was galloping along.

Chamberlain was no fool, he knew that fighting Germany before Britain was ready would have been suicide, so he did everything he could to avoid it and buy time to rearm. He knew that conflict with Germany was unavoidable.

So please, give that poor guy some credit.