# Should Canada pay the United States to defend us?



## McG (7 Dec 2004)

Globe & Mail Poll:
_Canada's vice-chief of defence staff has admitted the military cannot afford to house, train and equip the extra troops due to join its ranks. Meanwhile, our CF-18s are coming up for a major refit and our submarines leak. This prompts us to ask: Should Canada give up on its failing Forces and pay the United States to defend us?_

Vote here:  http://www.theglobeandmail.com/

So far the results are: 

Yes:   393 votes   (15 %) 
No:  2147 votes   (85 %)


----------



## jmackenzie_15 (7 Dec 2004)

why dont we just break the country off into new states while we're at it.


----------



## Hansol (7 Dec 2004)

I pledge allegiance to the flag....


----------



## a_majoor (7 Dec 2004)

Beef, softwood lumber, steel tarrifs, water exports...I think we are already paying. Cutting a cheque would be a lot simpler.


----------



## canuck101 (7 Dec 2004)

How do we increase the ability to train soldiers in the short-term. Could we ask the US to help us in the short-term with trainers. If not what do you think we can do.


----------



## Peace_Keeper (7 Dec 2004)

Oh great another Idea to waste money on......


----------



## Slim (7 Dec 2004)

This thread is in extremely bad taste.

Slim


----------



## Foxhound (7 Dec 2004)

Wasn't it Churchill who said, â Å“Every country has an army â â€œ it's own or somebody else's.â ?


----------



## jrhume (7 Dec 2004)

How would we charge?  By the threat?  A flat fee?

What's the rental fee on an armored division?  Are Humvees safe against polar bears?  Can M1A2 Abrahms operate in cold climates?  Would we have to pay for damages to tundra?  Tank engines probably don't meet Kyoto requirements for exhaust emissions.  That could be a problem.

I wonder if Armed Force Rental Officers work on commision?

  Jim


----------



## Genetk44 (7 Dec 2004)

Quite frankly a country that isn't willing to at least try to defend itself doesn't deserve to be free and independent. Sadly that looks like the way Canada is heading :-[


----------



## Pieman (7 Dec 2004)

There is no reason Canada can't afford to maintain it's millitary, we can afford it. Believe it or not, we are quite wealthy. It is a question of where the tax payer wants to put their dollars.


----------



## sdimock (7 Dec 2004)

From Old Guy

"Tank engines probably don't meet Kyoto requirements for exhaust emissions."  

Some of our politicians don't meet Kyoto requirements for exhaust emissions.


----------



## karl28 (7 Dec 2004)

Just when you think that the Canadian Media cant get any lower they find a new way to do it . This poll is in very bad taste  the military needs public support not more bashing from the media so they can  sell more papers .    Very poor taste


----------



## CT554 (7 Dec 2004)

I think the government should actually privatise health care and then maybe have a huge dump of money in the military, some people go to the hospital just for a headache, and then they complain that health care is no good.......well i think that makes a point.

forever...


----------



## Kirkhill (7 Dec 2004)

Maybe the US could turn the USMC into its version of the Foreign Legion and we could re-role the CF as its 5th Division.   Equipment compatibility, used to working with less, greater opportunities for advancement, might even get to wear a maple leaf as a divisional patch. :rage:


----------



## Big Foot (7 Dec 2004)

Kirkhill, if that happened, I'd VR. I signed up as a Canadian soldier, and thats all I want to be. No offence to any Americans on this site but, I just could not fight for an American President. I am a proud Canadian and feel the CF is important to our identity as a nation. I would not serve if it became American, that simple.


----------



## Kirkhill (7 Dec 2004)

Big Foot

I would hope that most would do as you would.  It's just the frustration getting the better or me.

Cheers.


----------



## Edward Campbell (7 Dec 2004)

Slim said:
			
		

> This thread is in extremely bad taste.
> 
> Slim



Sorry, I cannot agree.   Look at these two items from today's papers:



> National Post http://www.canada.com/national/nationalpost/news/story.html?id=66b5d39d-8cd8-4e63-8d61-878c0c0bcaed
> The next medicare?
> Peter Shawn Taylor
> National Post
> ...





> Ottawa Citizen   http://www.canada.com/ottawa/ottawacitizen/news/story.html?id=54ffbfd3-925b-44d0-a1b5-3f279ba0bcb8
> Troop boost 'will take five years'
> No money to keep election promise, stunned defence committee told
> 
> ...



There is a big league _social programmes_ industry out there which, supported by a large minority of Liberal MPs who are, in turn, backed up by almost all of the NDP and BQ MPs, wants *all* defence spending frozen and then rolled back in order to fund a total _nanny state_ for Canada.   Canadians *have decided*, consistently, ever since St Laurent retired in the '50s, that they want more and more and more _social services_ and that they can and should come at the expense of national security.   The Liberal Party of Canada has adopted the tried and true political tactic of determining where the people want to go just before they rush to the front of the mob and lead it there.

The question in the _Globe's_ poll is pertinent because there is a price to be paid.


----------



## Scratch_043 (7 Dec 2004)

IMHO, this is the biggest possible insult to the CF. The Govt cuts spending on our military, and later decides that "oh, maybe we do need to defend ourselves" and instead take money that could go to our own forces, and spend it on 'renting' forces from the states. This does not make sense to me, let me put it this way; say you are living in a house for 20 odd years, and renting the house costs $800 a month, while it costs $900 a month to pay a 20 year mortgage, why would you rent the house, when you can pay the mortgage, and own the house after the 20 years is up. (A car could also be used for this example, in a shorter time frame of course)The same applies to the allotment of defense funding.


----------



## CT554 (7 Dec 2004)

ToRN said:
			
		

> IMHO, this is the biggest possible insult to the CF. The Govt cuts spending on our military, and later decides that "oh, maybe we do need to defend ourselves" and instead take money that could go to our own forces, and spend it on 'renting' forces from the states. This does not make sense to me, let me put it this way; say you are living in a house for 20 odd years, and renting the house costs $800 a month, while it costs $900 a month to pay a 20 year mortgage, why would you rent the house, when you can pay the mortgage, and own the house after the 20 years is up. (A car could also be used for this example, in a shorter time frame of course)The same applies to the allotment of defense funding.




that's an exelent example man, totally agree


----------



## Cliff (7 Dec 2004)

CT554 said:
			
		

> I think the government should actually privatise health care and then maybe have a huge dump of money in the military, some people go to the hospital just for a headache, and then they complain that health care is no good.......well i think that makes a point.
> 
> forever...



There may come a time when the military will need to be privatised to keep it going


----------



## Disillusioned (7 Dec 2004)

I can feel the angst of Canadian soldiers, but quite honestly the only country close enough and aggressive enough to pose a land threat right now is the U.S., so integrating would be a bad idea.

I would give it time, as neo-liberal globalists like Paul 
Martin won't be in office forever, give it 10 or 20 years at least, and Paul Martin's generation will be long gone from politics......eventually if we can stop integrating like NORTHCOMM we'll some day have leadershipi perhaps that will better fund everything in Canada, including our military.

I wouldn't assume that Harper would better-fund our military for our benefits....I think a David Orchard if he finds a political vehicle would fund the armed forced much better to serve our own interests....he mentioned that in a talk I attended.

I also think that some TV ads and programs in school would help young people become more intersted in the military, and inform them that we actually have one. ;D I always foudn most young people I went to school with wanted a bigger miltary, but got a false impression of our miltiary's ability because of the negative press.....although those ads in the movie theatres weren't bad.


----------



## rounder (7 Dec 2004)

UPDATED... I can't beleive there are three thousand people out there like this!!!



Canada's vice-chief of defence staff has admitted the military cannot afford to house, train and equip the extra troops due to join its ranks. Meanwhile, our CF-18s are coming up for a major refit and our submarines leak. This prompts us to ask: Should Canada give up on its failing Forces and pay the United States to defend us?


Yes  
  3164 votes   (16 %) 

No  
  16999 votes   (84 %)


----------



## Infanteer (7 Dec 2004)

> I can feel the angst of Canadian soldiers, but quite honestly the only country close enough and aggressive enough to pose a land threat right now is the U.S., so integrating would be a bad idea.



I would consider a dirty bomb/nuclear bomb detonated in Vancouver harbour to be a more realistic threat then the 10th Mountain Division in Ft. Drum.


----------



## McG (7 Dec 2004)

You can still vote.  http://www.theglobeandmail.com/

Yes: 3234 votes     (16 %) 
No: 17340 votes     (84 %)


----------



## Edward Campbell (7 Dec 2004)

ToRN said:
			
		

> IMHO, this is the biggest possible insult to the CF. The Govt cuts spending on our military, and later decides that "oh, maybe we do need to defend ourselves" and instead take money that could go to our own forces, and spend it on 'renting' forces from the states. This does not make sense to me, let me put it this way; say you are living in a house for 20 odd years, and renting the house costs $800 a month, while it costs $900 a month to pay a 20 year mortgage, why would you rent the house, when you can pay the mortgage, and own the house after the 20 years is up. (A car could also be used for this example, in a shorter time frame of course)The same applies to the allotment of defense funding.



The government isn't proposing anything, certainly not 'rent a friend.'   The _Globe and Mail_ asked a mildly provocative question - it is encouraging that less tan 20% voted 'yes.'


----------



## Scratch_043 (7 Dec 2004)

...but stil dishartening that 16% did vote yes.


----------



## Edward Campbell (7 Dec 2004)

ToRN said:
			
		

> ...but stil dishartening that 16% did vote yes.



Yes, that too ... and please don't mislead yourselves into believing that the 84% who said no believe that the defence budget should be increased.

There is, has been for a long time, good solid data which says that about 20% of Canadians are absolutely rock solid supporters of the military who want increased defence spending; another 20% want unilateral disarmament right now.   The disheartening thing is that most of the 20% (and most of the 40% who are moderately supportive of the military) are ill informed on political/strategic/defence issues while most of the 20% who want to disband the CF are very well informed and politically active.   Our support is only half a mile wide but it remains depressingly shallow â â€œ just like in '68.


----------



## McG (8 Dec 2004)

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/GIS.Servlets.Page/document/polls/pollResults?id=29897&pollid=29897&save=_save&show_vote_always=no&poll=GAMFront&hub=Front&subhub=VoteResult

The pole has closed.  Final results - 

Yes: 3340 votes   (16 %) 
No: 17946 votes   (84 %)


----------



## ramy (8 Dec 2004)

I totally dont agree with the idea of hiring americans protect us . Its our country so we have to protect it our selves.


----------



## jrhume (8 Dec 2004)

Shoot.  I guess there's no career as Armored Division Rental Officer in my future, eh?

Seriously, guys, this is a nutball scheme and the article was a bit over the top, on purpose.

Here's a two-part plan for Canadian Forces.  

1.  All Canadians who can, serve in the CF, right up to whatever numbers the politicians will fund.

2.  Every other young Canadian who wants to serve do so in the US armed forces.  

That way, when reality finally hits the Canadian pols and people, there will be a solid foundation of experienced soldiers, sailors and airmen to draw on.  Besides which, those who have already served will form a generally more conservative part of the electorate. 

There it is.  Free.  No need to thank me.

Heh-heh.  Um -- what's with all the rotten tomatoes?  

Aaaaaaaahhhhh!

Jim


----------



## CT554 (8 Dec 2004)

No offense to you old guy but, we would'nt wanna make your army stronger, look at Rommel what he said

If I had American supply lines, British planes, German officers and Canadian troops, I could take over the world"
- Field Marshal Erwin Rommel


----------



## jrhume (8 Dec 2004)

I think there are already a goodly number of Canadian comrades making our forces stronger.

It was that way in Vietnam.  I had the honor of serving with at least two Canadians in Vietnam.  

Jim


----------



## Ex-Dragoon (8 Dec 2004)

CT554...can you provide me a source of that quote I have looked and never been able to find it.


----------



## bubba (8 Dec 2004)

yeah ex dragoon,i heard that quote over 10 years ago myself.i always wondered if rommel really said it,or was it just a myth.CT55 please do let us know were you got that from.


----------



## Fishbone Jones (8 Dec 2004)

Well, I Googled the quote and got no hits. If it exists, it's not out there in cyberspace in that context.


----------



## Ex-Dragoon (8 Dec 2004)

recceguy personally I wonder if its one of those infamous military urban myths. Hey Mike Dorosh any insight on this quote?


----------



## Smith048 (9 Dec 2004)

I heard that quote on a history show about WW2


----------



## Hylander_ca (9 Dec 2004)

Ex-Dragoon...Ref that quote. I think Gen(R) MacKenzie (CF) said the same thing. Either just before or after retiring, I can't remember for sure. Can anybody confirm this for me as well pls.

Cheers
 :mg:


----------



## cgyflames01 (9 Dec 2004)

I doubt the yankee army would even be in our budget. If it were, however say good bye to a sovernty aswell


----------



## Q.Y. Ranger (9 Dec 2004)

If we changed some things, there would be no reason why we would have a failing military. Some of the Navy's equipment ( i don't know much about the Navy) like some of there ships will never be used. Ships who's main job is to protect against enemy subs, is quite useless. Most if not all countries that we will deploy to, will not even have a Navy, let alone Subs, but if it was a major country that we had to deffend against, then i don't thing our Navy would be very helpful. If we sold these things, and stopped spending money just to attempt to keep them operational, and put this money towards the Army, which is the main deployable force, then we would no longer have a failing Military. And we would not need to disban our Forces, and pay for some other country to deffend us.


----------



## Acorn (9 Dec 2004)

Q.Y. Ranger said:
			
		

> If we changed some things, there would be no reason why we would have a failing military. Some of the Navy's equipment ( i don't know much about the Navy)



You should have stopped there. If you don't know "much" about the Navy how can you decide that they should sell ships? 

Acorn


----------



## Disillusioned (9 Dec 2004)

Acorn said:
			
		

> You should have stopped there. If you don't know "much" about the Navy how can you decide that they should sell ships?
> 
> Acorn




It's sad that the army, navy and air force are forced to argue amongst themselves for bread crumbs....that being said, isn't dropping troop levels in our army the biggest threat to our security?

Also, I don't see how another country would be legally obliged to defend anything, no matter how much you paid them, because they control their own laws.


----------



## xterra rat (9 Dec 2004)

The mere thought of the concept disgusts me. We are allies and I love my Yankee brothers. But any money should be spent so WE can defend Canada. THE REGS and RESERVES will defend this nation. We are trained for it. Just give us the tools. (MOUNTED NADE LAUNCHES, Hell even good ammo for the C7. You know the kind I am talking about)


----------



## CrimsonSeil (9 Dec 2004)

I can't believe someone actually thought about removing the CF... Its just disappointing.


----------



## QY RANG 2 (9 Dec 2004)

WHAT KIND OF TOPIC IS THAT! I don't think that will be necessary!


----------



## Ex-Dragoon (10 Dec 2004)

> You should have stopped there. If you don't know "much" about the Navy how can you decide that they should sell ships?



I so agree Acorn... go back to cadets QY Ranger as you just proved your out of your league by not knowing what you are talking about.


----------



## Fishbone Jones (10 Dec 2004)

I can't believe so many people, that have shown so much intelligence on other threads, are getting so bent out of shape over such a non starter fantasy. :


----------



## oyaguy (11 Dec 2004)

To start, dumb idea. Paying the US to defend us. I'm a fairly left leaning underdog lover, but even I recognize that's a dumb idea.

Still though, lets take this idea of "outsourcing"{Soon to be a banned word} Defence to the US.

First, threats to Canada. What are they? Natural disasters, terrorism, internal dissent, nuclear weapons, invasion...

1. Natural Disasters. Apparently B.C. is overdue for a big earthquake. Maybe we could station a battalion in B.C. and beef up the Reserves. I don't think US help would be necessary. Besides, if Vancouver and area is dealing with a Big One, the US will be busy with Seattle. 
2. Terrorism, in my own opinion, is a problem for intelligence and police agencies. The very nature of terrorists mean the frontline will be our own neighbourhoods. The heroes of September 11th, afterall, were emergency personal who helped evacuate the Twin Towers. The methods of September 11th also means there a repeat performance would be difficult to pull off. The passengers probably won't wait for the terrorists to fly their plane into a building. For Canadians, maybe we should have more fighter jets stationed closer to major cities for quick response. For terrorism, more money for the borders, and inspection of shipping containers would be useful. I doubt how the US could help their, because in general they seem to be having as hard a time as Canada, in getting our respective acts together. 
3. Internal Dissent. I believe that the official term is Giving Aid to the Civil Authorities. This has happened in Canada. I put it down as Internal Dissent, to distinguish it from Natural Disasters where aid would be give to the civil authority{the ice storms}. The biggest deployments of Canadian soldiers since the Second World War, has been on Canadian soil. The FLQ crisis, Oka. on both occasions the CF performed magnificently , so for a future crisis, we probably won't need US help.
4. Nuclear Weapons. Okay, this is probably where we do freeload off of the Americans. We don't have nuclear weapons, even though there are probably nuclear weapons aimed at Canada in the Former Soviet Union. Still, in the event of another "great power melee"(Gwynne Dyer, his new book Future Tense), whether Canada has an extra 100 nukes to lobe at the other guy or not, the outcome is still the same, hundreds of millions dead. The threat of nuclear proliferation kind of goes under terrorism as we don't want terrorists getting their hands on nuclear weapons. As for rogue states {Iran, North Korea} we could join the US's missile defence and hope it will work in my lifetime{I'm 19 so it's a fair chance}. So one for outsourcing Canadian Defence. I think most Canadians, and the military, can live with the fact we don't have a nuclear arsenal.
5. Invasion. However much the media, people on this forum, and Canadians in general bemoan our Armed Forces, there isn't as single country in the world that could successfully invade Canada. _Except_, the United States, another democracy who we have good relations with, so they wouldn't invade Canada anyway. Everyone else, even Norway {You bowtie wearing d**k}, will have to reconcile themselves that either their geography or armed forces aren't good enough, and the CF isn't bad enough, for them to pull of an invasion.

*I know I could have added more examples and topics, but A) I'm doing this off the top of my head, B) I think I got the really big ones. Don't bother bringing more examples to my attention unless it would reveal a hole in my logic. Thanks. 

What I'm getting to, is that for the purpose of defending Canada, the CF is more than adequate{like all things, there can be improvement}, so whatever people think, outsourcing our defence is neither a good idea, or even necessary.

But {there is always a but} for Canada to be real player on the world stage, we need a military that can go places. We need a military that can go halfway around the world, take the other guy's head off, and then patrol a city, or countryside. We need a military that could do that, and not have to beg and borrow for a ride their and back, and to ship over supplies.
I personally think Canadians are starting to wake up to this idea, that for Canada to shine in the world, we need a better military. I even think politicians are waking up to the fact, Canadians want a better military. Why else would Paul Martin make a campaign promise for 5000 more peacekeepers {semantics, in my mind the Canadian lexicon equates peacekeepers as soldiers}. Whether Paul Martin can carry this out is another question.


----------



## Pugnacious (11 Dec 2004)

ToRN said:
			
		

> ...but stil dishartening that 16% did vote yes.



They are prob' Americans reading the Glob and mail online from their Summer cottages here in Canada. ;D
BTW: The analogy of renting  vs owning a house is a good point.

Also on another note since when does the public have any control of where our taxmoney goes?
It's our (lib) Government that is gutting the military, not the average Joe.

Cheers!
P.


----------



## Torlyn (11 Dec 2004)

CT554 said:
			
		

> No offense to you old guy but, we would'nt wanna make your army stronger, look at Rommel what he said
> 
> If I had American supply lines, British planes, German officers and Canadian troops, I could take over the world"
> - Field Marshal Erwin Rommel



In regards to this quote...  You won't find it substantiated anywhere, as he never said it.  It was a compilation of a discussion he was having regarding the various strengths of the other forces...  He believed the americans' strength was its supply lines, the Brits, their planes & pilots, the germans, their officer training, and the CDNs, the rank & file soldier.  (I remember doing a paper on this...  I'm digging it up, and I'll post where I got that info from ASAP, but it's an old paper, bear with me)

T


----------



## Pugnacious (12 Dec 2004)

Might have made Germany stronger, but who would have wanted to become Nazis?

And like wise I can't see how watering down the last bit of our Canadian culture will make us stronger.
Methinks we are too dependant on others as it is.

Cheers!
P.


----------



## acheo (16 Dec 2004)

Same post on MapleLeafWeb.com. Here's my opinion



> I'll try to translate an article I read when I did my Military Law OPME: Any armed forces that does not carry the same social values becomes a threat for its own country and citizens".
> 
> Using the US for defending our territory would eventually turn against us as we are definitely not sharing the same social values.
> 
> To your question I answer NO!


----------



## mo-litia (23 Dec 2004)

canuck101 said:
			
		

> How do we increase the ability to train soldiers in the short-term. Could we ask the US to help us in the short-term with trainers. If not what do you think we can do.



This actually sounds like a decent idea - if we were attempting to drastically increase the size of our military.


----------

