# Ottawa Citizen



## army (23 Sep 2002)

Posted by *"Gow" <jgow@home.com>* on *Wed, 24 Jan 2001 22:54:58 -0500*
Note tonight‘s exerpt on the internet declaims a merger between the USA 
and Canadian Military by the year 2020 closure of Canada‘a Military 
Officer Schools, etc.
Interesting reading, regardless of which side of the inevitable argument 
you‘re on.
Note tonight‘s exerpt on the internet declaims a 
merger
between the USA and Canadian Military by the year 2020 closure of 
Canada‘a
Military Officer Schools, etc.
Interesting reading, regardless of which side of the 
inevitable argument you‘re on.
--------------------------------------------------------
NOTE:  To remove yourself from this list, send a message
to majordomo@CdnArmy.ca from the account you wish to
remove, with the line "unsubscribe army-list" in the
message body.


----------



## army (23 Sep 2002)

Posted by *"Joan O. Arc" <joan_o_arc@hotmail.com>* on *Thu, 25 Jan 2001 06:44:35 -0000*
Aaargh! Oh well, that article only reflects the inevitable, I suppose.
With the federal government passing "Clarity Bills" that are neither more 
nor less than recipes on "how to break up the country", and with millions in 
Canadian and, or so the rumour goes US oil $$$ being spent to try to 
foment separatism in the West and who *knows* where the money that keeps 
the separatists in Quebec afloat comes from?!?!, it‘s only to be expected 
that some in the military have now thrown in the towel on the country 
they‘re being paid to defend, I guess.
Just one question: How widely shared is the good Colonel‘s Forgive me if  I 
get the rank wrong. point-of-view? Any takers???
-  J.O.A.
----Original Message Follows----
From: "Gow" 
Reply-To: army-list@CdnArmy.ca
To: 
Subject: Ottawa Citizen
Date: Wed, 24 Jan 2001 22:54:58 -0500
Note tonight‘s exerpt on the internet declaims a merger between the USA and 
Canadian Military by the year 2020 closure of Canada‘a Military Officer 
Schools, etc.
Interesting reading, regardless of which side of the inevitable argument 
you‘re on.
_________________________________________________________________________
Get Your Private, Free E-mail from MSN Hotmail at  http://www.hotmail.com. 
--------------------------------------------------------
NOTE:  To remove yourself from this list, send a message
to majordomo@CdnArmy.ca from the account you wish to
remove, with the line "unsubscribe army-list" in the
message body.


----------



## army (23 Sep 2002)

Posted by *"Gow" <jgow@home.com>* on *Thu, 25 Jan 2001 01:52:02 -0500*
Can‘t say I‘m buying, Joan, but its only 2001...I‘ll be the equivalent to a
thousand years old then, and people are still voting for Harris, just now...
 John
----- Original Message -----
From: "Joan O. Arc" 
To: 
Sent: Thursday, January 25, 2001 1:44 AM
Subject: Re: Ottawa Citizen
> Aaargh! Oh well, that article only reflects the inevitable, I suppose.
>
> With the federal government passing "Clarity Bills" that are neither more
> nor less than recipes on "how to break up the country", and with millions
in
> Canadian and, or so the rumour goes US oil $$$ being spent to try to
> foment separatism in the West and who *knows* where the money that keeps
> the separatists in Quebec afloat comes from?!?!, it‘s only to be expected
> that some in the military have now thrown in the towel on the country
> they‘re being paid to defend, I guess.
>
> Just one question: How widely shared is the good Colonel‘s Forgive me if
I
> get the rank wrong. point-of-view? Any takers???
>
>
> -  J.O.A.
>
> ----Original Message Follows----
> From: "Gow" 
> Reply-To: army-list@CdnArmy.ca
> To: 
> Subject: Ottawa Citizen
> Date: Wed, 24 Jan 2001 22:54:58 -0500
>
> Note tonight‘s exerpt on the internet declaims a merger between the USA
and
> Canadian Military by the year 2020 closure of Canada‘a Military Officer
> Schools, etc.
>
> Interesting reading, regardless of which side of the inevitable argument
> you‘re on.
>
> _________________________________________________________________________
> Get Your Private, Free E-mail from MSN Hotmail at  http://www.hotmail.com. 
>
> --------------------------------------------------------
> NOTE:  To remove yourself from this list, send a message
> to majordomo@CdnArmy.ca from the account you wish to
> remove, with the line "unsubscribe army-list" in the
> message body.
--------------------------------------------------------
NOTE:  To remove yourself from this list, send a message
to majordomo@CdnArmy.ca from the account you wish to
remove, with the line "unsubscribe army-list" in the
message body.


----------



## army (23 Sep 2002)

Posted by *"Gow" <jgow@home.com>* on *Fri, 26 Jan 2001 00:30:33 -0500*
I don‘t really think that fusion of DND with the USA is inevitable.
Come on and think it through...would you or anyoneyou know vote for such a
government?
But you must allow military offcers to suggest and propose the most
"TWISTED, and worst case, not-in-the-national-interest scenarios" on such a
venue, and sit back andwait for public reaction.
They know our military system is getting screwed by the liberals, and
certainly would do no beter under the Alliance...the Conservatives did
nothing for them...this is a bit of a scream of pain from the rupturing of
the trust that is supposed to be there between the people and the Service...
So all of us should print the Colonel‘s argument out, write on it "What‘s
your party‘s opinion and position" and mail it to our MP, as well as any
woulda-been MP‘s that did not get elected...because if you want to change
things, well, sorry, but this is one of the best means of doing so....
And, no, the article is not an expression of government policy, nor a
position of the Colonel‘s beliefs, or wishes...just a "Jesus, Canada...HEADS
UP FOR CHRIST‘S SAKE!!
John
----- Original Message -----
From: "Joan O. Arc" 
To: 
Sent: Thursday, January 25, 2001 1:44 AM
Subject: Re: Ottawa Citizen
> Aaargh! Oh well, that article only reflects the inevitable, I suppose.
>
> With the federal government passing "Clarity Bills" that are neither more
> nor less than recipes on "how to break up the country", and with millions
in
> Canadian and, or so the rumour goes US oil $$$ being spent to try to
> foment separatism in the West and who *knows* where the money that keeps
> the separatists in Quebec afloat comes from?!?!, it‘s only to be expected
> that some in the military have now thrown in the towel on the country
> they‘re being paid to defend, I guess.
>
> Just one question: How widely shared is the good Colonel‘s Forgive me if
I
> get the rank wrong. point-of-view? Any takers???
>
>
> -  J.O.A.
>
> ----Original Message Follows----
> From: "Gow" 
> Reply-To: army-list@CdnArmy.ca
> To: 
> Subject: Ottawa Citizen
> Date: Wed, 24 Jan 2001 22:54:58 -0500
>
> Note tonight‘s exerpt on the internet declaims a merger between the USA
and
> Canadian Military by the year 2020 closure of Canada‘a Military Officer
> Schools, etc.
>
> Interesting reading, regardless of which side of the inevitable argument
> you‘re on.
>
> _________________________________________________________________________
> Get Your Private, Free E-mail from MSN Hotmail at  http://www.hotmail.com. 
>
> --------------------------------------------------------
> NOTE:  To remove yourself from this list, send a message
> to majordomo@CdnArmy.ca from the account you wish to
> remove, with the line "unsubscribe army-list" in the
> message body.
--------------------------------------------------------
NOTE:  To remove yourself from this list, send a message
to majordomo@CdnArmy.ca from the account you wish to
remove, with the line "unsubscribe army-list" in the
message body.


----------



## army (23 Sep 2002)

Posted by *"dave newcombe" <dave.newcombe@home.com>* on *Fri, 26 Jan 2001 07:53:02 -0800*
does anyone have the URL for the article....I‘ve been away for a few days
and missed it.....Hard to keep up out here
--------------------------------------------------------
NOTE:  To remove yourself from this list, send a message
to majordomo@CdnArmy.ca from the account you wish to
remove, with the line "unsubscribe army-list" in the
message body.


----------



## army (23 Sep 2002)

Posted by *m.oleary@ns.sympatico.ca* on *Fri, 26 Jan 2001 10:00:35 -0800*
Keep in mind that the article only offers "soundbites" of a discussion
with a senior officer whose job it is to explore and consider
options of evolution for our army and on a time scale that most
of us do not envision everyday, take for example the degree of
immediacy and self-interest of the problems discussed on the
Army Home Page‘s venues.
There are many facets to the Colonel‘s remarks which do not necessarily
require a leap to the reporter‘s inference that Canada‘s Army
could simply become a subordinate formation in the American Army.
As the western nations evolve more and more toward a Coalition
concept of higher level operations ex: Gulf War, the Balkans,
a greater amount of system interoperability is required in command,
control and information systems, logistic systems to ensure greater
operational flexibility and sustainment, and doctrinal approaches
to force structure and employment.
If the European nations can agree on a single currency, then
perhaps we can share an operational doctrine with the US and/or
other nations that will make us more effective in combined operations.
Mike
The Regimental Rogue
 http://regimentalrogue.tripod.com 
--- Original Message ---
"Joan O. Arc"  Wrote on 
Thu, 25 Jan 2001 06:44:35 -0000
 ------------------ 
Aaargh! Oh well, that article only reflects the inevitable, I
suppose.
With the federal government passing "Clarity Bills" that are
neither more 
nor less than recipes on "how to break up the country", and with
millions in 
Canadian and, or so the rumour goes US oil $$$ being spent
to try to 
foment separatism in the West and who *knows* where the money
that keeps 
the separatists in Quebec afloat comes from?!?!, it‘s only to
be expected 
that some in the military have now thrown in the towel on the
country 
they‘re being paid to defend, I guess.
Just one question: How widely shared is the good Colonel‘s Forgive
me if  I 
get the rank wrong. point-of-view? Any takers???
-  J.O.A.
----Original Message Follows----
From: "Gow" 
Reply-To: army-list@CdnArmy.ca
To: 
Subject: Ottawa Citizen
Date: Wed, 24 Jan 2001 22:54:58 -0500
Note tonight‘s exerpt on the internet declaims a merger between
the USA and 
Canadian Military by the year 2020 closure of Canada‘a Military
Officer 
Schools, etc.
Interesting reading, regardless of which side of the inevitable
argument 
you‘re on.
_________________________________________________________________________
Get Your Private, Free E-mail from MSN Hotmail at  http://www.hotmail.com. 
--------------------------------------------------------
NOTE:  To remove yourself from this list, send a message
to majordomo@CdnArmy.ca from the account you wish to
remove, with the line "unsubscribe army-list" in the
message body.
-----
Sent using MailStart.com   http://MailStart.Com/welcome.html  
The FREE way to access your mailbox via any web browser, anywhere!
--------------------------------------------------------
NOTE:  To remove yourself from this list, send a message
to majordomo@CdnArmy.ca from the account you wish to
remove, with the line "unsubscribe army-list" in the
message body.


----------



## army (23 Sep 2002)

Posted by *"Peter deVries" <rsm_kes_cc254@hotmail.com>* on *Fri, 26 Jan 2001 20:22:14 *
Mike,
   Do you know a guy, his name is Kristoff, he is a Leutanant Commander I 
think in the Navy? He mentioned your name when we werre talking about the 
RCR‘s, he is upgrading at Dal University and is in my Middle Eastern History 
Class.
Peter
>From: m.oleary@ns.sympatico.ca
>Reply-To: army-list@CdnArmy.ca
>To: army-list@CdnArmy.ca
>Subject: RE: Re: Ottawa Citizen
>Date: Fri, 26 Jan 2001 10:00:35 -0800
>
>
>Keep in mind that the article only offers "soundbites" of a discussion
>with a senior officer whose job it is to explore and consider
>options of evolution for our army and on a time scale that most
>of us do not envision everyday, take for example the degree of
>immediacy and self-interest of the problems discussed on the
>Army Home Page‘s venues.
>
>There are many facets to the Colonel‘s remarks which do not necessarily
>require a leap to the reporter‘s inference that Canada‘s Army
>could simply become a subordinate formation in the American Army.
>As the western nations evolve more and more toward a Coalition
>concept of higher level operations ex: Gulf War, the Balkans,
>a greater amount of system interoperability is required in command,
>control and information systems, logistic systems to ensure greater
>operational flexibility and sustainment, and doctrinal approaches
>to force structure and employment.
>
>If the European nations can agree on a single currency, then
>perhaps we can share an operational doctrine with the US and/or
>other nations that will make us more effective in combined operations.
>
>Mike
>
>The Regimental Rogue
>http://regimentalrogue.tripod.com
>
>
>
>--- Original Message ---
>"Joan O. Arc"  Wrote on
>Thu, 25 Jan 2001 06:44:35 -0000
>  ------------------
>Aaargh! Oh well, that article only reflects the inevitable, I
>suppose.
>
>With the federal government passing "Clarity Bills" that are
>neither more
>nor less than recipes on "how to break up the country", and with
>millions in
>Canadian and, or so the rumour goes US oil $$$ being spent
>to try to
>foment separatism in the West and who *knows* where the money
>that keeps
>the separatists in Quebec afloat comes from?!?!, it‘s only to
>be expected
>that some in the military have now thrown in the towel on the
>country
>they‘re being paid to defend, I guess.
>
>Just one question: How widely shared is the good Colonel‘s Forgive
>me if  I
>get the rank wrong. point-of-view? Any takers???
>
>
>-  J.O.A.
>
>----Original Message Follows----
>From: "Gow" 
>Reply-To: army-list@CdnArmy.ca
>To: 
>Subject: Ottawa Citizen
>Date: Wed, 24 Jan 2001 22:54:58 -0500
>
>Note tonight‘s exerpt on the internet declaims a merger between
>the USA and
>Canadian Military by the year 2020 closure of Canada‘a Military
>Officer
>Schools, etc.
>
>Interesting reading, regardless of which side of the inevitable
>argument
>you‘re on.
>
>_________________________________________________________________________
>Get Your Private, Free E-mail from MSN Hotmail at  http://www.hotmail.com. 
>
>--------------------------------------------------------
>NOTE:  To remove yourself from this list, send a message
>to majordomo@CdnArmy.ca from the account you wish to
>remove, with the line "unsubscribe army-list" in the
>message body.
>
>
>-----
>Sent using MailStart.com   http://MailStart.Com/welcome.html  
>The FREE way to access your mailbox via any web browser, anywhere!
>
>--------------------------------------------------------
>NOTE:  To remove yourself from this list, send a message
>to majordomo@CdnArmy.ca from the account you wish to
>remove, with the line "unsubscribe army-list" in the
>message body.
_________________________________________________________________________
Get Your Private, Free E-mail from MSN Hotmail at  http://www.hotmail.com. 
--------------------------------------------------------
NOTE:  To remove yourself from this list, send a message
to majordomo@CdnArmy.ca from the account you wish to
remove, with the line "unsubscribe army-list" in the
message body.


----------



## army (23 Sep 2002)

Posted by *"Joan O. Arc" <joan_o_arc@hotmail.com>* on *Sat, 27 Jan 2001 07:13:59 -0000*
Your reply is - as always - both informed and logical. It falls down on only 
one point, I think: What if the greatest threat to Canada‘s territorial 
integrity/sovereignty were ever to be - hard though it may be to imagine 
such a scenario, I know - the good ol‘ US of A?
With growing power and water shortages in the American West and with plenty 
of both up here espec. in our West it isn‘t impossible to envision a 
scenario in which the temptation to make a hasty and nasty "grab" - instead 
of doing what decent nations and allies do, which is to gain access to 
neighbours‘ commodities and resources thru trade - might arise...
Nevertheless, your point about the benefits of sharing an operational 
doctrine is well taken.
Good to have you back on the list. Was starting to think we had driven you 
into the wild, blue yonder.
Cheers,
Joan
----Original Message Follows----
From: m.oleary@ns.sympatico.ca
Reply-To: army-list@CdnArmy.ca
To: army-list@CdnArmy.ca
Subject: RE: Re: Ottawa Citizen
Date: Fri, 26 Jan 2001 10:00:35 -0800
Keep in mind that the article only offers "soundbites" of a discussion
with a senior officer whose job it is to explore and consider
options of evolution for our army and on a time scale that most
of us do not envision everyday, take for example the degree of
immediacy and self-interest of the problems discussed on the
Army Home Page‘s venues.
There are many facets to the Colonel‘s remarks which do not necessarily
require a leap to the reporter‘s inference that Canada‘s Army
could simply become a subordinate formation in the American Army.
As the western nations evolve more and more toward a Coalition
concept of higher level operations ex: Gulf War, the Balkans,
a greater amount of system interoperability is required in command,
control and information systems, logistic systems to ensure greater
operational flexibility and sustainment, and doctrinal approaches
to force structure and employment.
If the European nations can agree on a single currency, then
perhaps we can share an operational doctrine with the US and/or
other nations that will make us more effective in combined operations.
Mike
The Regimental Rogue
 http://regimentalrogue.tripod.com 
--- Original Message ---
"Joan O. Arc"  Wrote on
Thu, 25 Jan 2001 06:44:35 -0000
  ------------------
Aaargh! Oh well, that article only reflects the inevitable, I
suppose.
With the federal government passing "Clarity Bills" that are
neither more
nor less than recipes on "how to break up the country", and with
millions in
Canadian and, or so the rumour goes US oil $$$ being spent
to try to
foment separatism in the West and who *knows* where the money
that keeps
the separatists in Quebec afloat comes from?!?!, it‘s only to
be expected
that some in the military have now thrown in the towel on the
country
they‘re being paid to defend, I guess.
Just one question: How widely shared is the good Colonel‘s Forgive
me if  I
get the rank wrong. point-of-view? Any takers???
-  J.O.A.
----Original Message Follows----
From: "Gow" 
Reply-To: army-list@CdnArmy.ca
To: 
Subject: Ottawa Citizen
Date: Wed, 24 Jan 2001 22:54:58 -0500
Note tonight‘s exerpt on the internet declaims a merger between
the USA and
Canadian Military by the year 2020 closure of Canada‘a Military
Officer
Schools, etc.
Interesting reading, regardless of which side of the inevitable
argument
you‘re on.
_________________________________________________________________________
Get Your Private, Free E-mail from MSN Hotmail at  http://www.hotmail.com. 
--------------------------------------------------------
NOTE:  To remove yourself from this list, send a message
to majordomo@CdnArmy.ca from the account you wish to
remove, with the line "unsubscribe army-list" in the
message body.
-----
Sent using MailStart.com   http://MailStart.Com/welcome.html  
The FREE way to access your mailbox via any web browser, anywhere!
--------------------------------------------------------
NOTE:  To remove yourself from this list, send a message
to majordomo@CdnArmy.ca from the account you wish to
remove, with the line "unsubscribe army-list" in the
message body.
_________________________________________________________________________
Get Your Private, Free E-mail from MSN Hotmail at  http://www.hotmail.com. 
--------------------------------------------------------
NOTE:  To remove yourself from this list, send a message
to majordomo@CdnArmy.ca from the account you wish to
remove, with the line "unsubscribe army-list" in the
message body.


----------



## army (23 Sep 2002)

Posted by *m.oleary@ns.sympatico.ca* on *Sat, 27 Jan 2001 08:06:38 -0800*
Personally I don‘t believe that that is a reasonable "threat"
that could realistically be met within Canadian resources military
or national. It is all too easy to conceieve outlandish "what-if"
scenarios that distract us from current issues. 
So what if we did decide that the US was a material military
threat looking to steal our resources. Should we become a North
Korea, diverting so much of our national resources to counter
a paranoid-delusional threat while watching our people slowly
starve on nationally controlled minimum rations?
We need realistic objectives and missions for our Forces, defending
the Canada-US border isn‘t one of them.
Mike
--- Original Message ---
"Joan O. Arc"  Wrote on 
Sat, 27 Jan 2001 07:13:59 -0000
 ------------------ 
Your reply is - as always - both informed and logical. It falls
down on only 
one point, I think: What if the greatest threat to Canada‘s territorial
integrity/sovereignty were ever to be - hard though it may be
to imagine 
such a scenario, I know - the good ol‘ US of A?
With growing power and water shortages in the American West and
with plenty 
of both up here espec. in our West it isn‘t impossible to envision
a 
scenario in which the temptation to make a hasty and nasty "grab"
- instead 
of doing what decent nations and allies do, which is to gain
access to 
neighbours‘ commodities and resources thru trade - might arise...
Nevertheless, your point about the benefits of sharing an operational
doctrine is well taken.
Good to have you back on the list. Was starting to think we had
driven you 
into the wild, blue yonder.
Cheers,
Joan
----Original Message Follows----
From: m.oleary@ns.sympatico.ca
Reply-To: army-list@CdnArmy.ca
To: army-list@CdnArmy.ca
Subject: RE: Re: Ottawa Citizen
Date: Fri, 26 Jan 2001 10:00:35 -0800
Keep in mind that the article only offers "soundbites" of a discussion
with a senior officer whose job it is to explore and consider
options of evolution for our army and on a time scale that most
of us do not envision everyday, take for example the degree of
immediacy and self-interest of the problems discussed on the
Army Home Page‘s venues.
There are many facets to the Colonel‘s remarks which do not necessarily
require a leap to the reporter‘s inference that Canada‘s Army
could simply become a subordinate formation in the American Army.
As the western nations evolve more and more toward a Coalition
concept of higher level operations ex: Gulf War, the Balkans,
a greater amount of system interoperability is required in command,
control and information systems, logistic systems to ensure greater
operational flexibility and sustainment, and doctrinal approaches
to force structure and employment.
If the European nations can agree on a single currency, then
perhaps we can share an operational doctrine with the US and/or
other nations that will make us more effective in combined operations.
Mike
The Regimental Rogue
 http://regimentalrogue.tripod.com 
--- Original Message ---
"Joan O. Arc"  Wrote on
Thu, 25 Jan 2001 06:44:35 -0000
  ------------------
Aaargh! Oh well, that article only reflects the inevitable, I
suppose.
With the federal government passing "Clarity Bills" that are
neither more
nor less than recipes on "how to break up the country", and with
millions in
Canadian and, or so the rumour goes US oil $$$ being spent
to try to
foment separatism in the West and who *knows* where the money
that keeps
the separatists in Quebec afloat comes from?!?!, it‘s only to
be expected
that some in the military have now thrown in the towel on the
country
they‘re being paid to defend, I guess.
Just one question: How widely shared is the good Colonel‘s Forgive
me if  I
get the rank wrong. point-of-view? Any takers???
-  J.O.A.
----Original Message Follows----
From: "Gow" 
Reply-To: army-list@CdnArmy.ca
To: 
Subject: Ottawa Citizen
Date: Wed, 24 Jan 2001 22:54:58 -0500
Note tonight‘s exerpt on the internet declaims a merger between
the USA and
Canadian Military by the year 2020 closure of Canada‘a Military
Officer
Schools, etc.
Interesting reading, regardless of which side of the inevitable
argument
you‘re on.
-----
Sent using MailStart.com   http://MailStart.Com/welcome.html  
The FREE way to access your mailbox via any web browser, anywhere!
--------------------------------------------------------
NOTE:  To remove yourself from this list, send a message
to majordomo@CdnArmy.ca from the account you wish to
remove, with the line "unsubscribe army-list" in the
message body.


----------



## army (23 Sep 2002)

Posted by *m.oleary@ns.sympatico.ca* on *Sat, 27 Jan 2001 08:08:05 -0800*
Personally I don‘t believe that that is a reasonable "threat"
that could realistically be met within Canadian resources military
or national. It is all too easy to conceieve outlandish "what-if"
scenarios that distract us from current issues. 
So what if we did decide that the US was a material military
threat looking to steal our resources. Should we become a North
Korea, diverting so much of our national resources to counter
a paranoid-delusional threat while watching our people slowly
starve on nationally controlled minimum rations?
We need realistic objectives and missions for our Forces, defending
the Canada-US border isn‘t one of them.
Mike
PS - I am curently two weeks into a ten-week Command and Staff
Scourse, so my opportinities to review and respond on this means
will be erratic for a few more months.
--- Original Message ---
"Joan O. Arc"  Wrote on 
Sat, 27 Jan 2001 07:13:59 -0000
 ------------------ 
Your reply is - as always - both informed and logical. It falls
down on only 
one point, I think: What if the greatest threat to Canada‘s territorial
integrity/sovereignty were ever to be - hard though it may be
to imagine 
such a scenario, I know - the good ol‘ US of A?
With growing power and water shortages in the American West and
with plenty 
of both up here espec. in our West it isn‘t impossible to envision
a 
scenario in which the temptation to make a hasty and nasty "grab"
- instead 
of doing what decent nations and allies do, which is to gain
access to 
neighbours‘ commodities and resources thru trade - might arise...
Nevertheless, your point about the benefits of sharing an operational
doctrine is well taken.
Good to have you back on the list. Was starting to think we had
driven you 
into the wild, blue yonder.
Cheers,
Joan
----Original Message Follows----
From: m.oleary@ns.sympatico.ca
Reply-To: army-list@CdnArmy.ca
To: army-list@CdnArmy.ca
Subject: RE: Re: Ottawa Citizen
Date: Fri, 26 Jan 2001 10:00:35 -0800
Keep in mind that the article only offers "soundbites" of a discussion
with a senior officer whose job it is to explore and consider
options of evolution for our army and on a time scale that most
of us do not envision everyday, take for example the degree of
immediacy and self-interest of the problems discussed on the
Army Home Page‘s venues.
There are many facets to the Colonel‘s remarks which do not necessarily
require a leap to the reporter‘s inference that Canada‘s Army
could simply become a subordinate formation in the American Army.
As the western nations evolve more and more toward a Coalition
concept of higher level operations ex: Gulf War, the Balkans,
a greater amount of system interoperability is required in command,
control and information systems, logistic systems to ensure greater
operational flexibility and sustainment, and doctrinal approaches
to force structure and employment.
If the European nations can agree on a single currency, then
perhaps we can share an operational doctrine with the US and/or
other nations that will make us more effective in combined operations.
Mike
The Regimental Rogue
 http://regimentalrogue.tripod.com 
--- Original Message ---
"Joan O. Arc"  Wrote on
Thu, 25 Jan 2001 06:44:35 -0000
  ------------------
Aaargh! Oh well, that article only reflects the inevitable, I
suppose.
With the federal government passing "Clarity Bills" that are
neither more
nor less than recipes on "how to break up the country", and with
millions in
Canadian and, or so the rumour goes US oil $$$ being spent
to try to
foment separatism in the West and who *knows* where the money
that keeps
the separatists in Quebec afloat comes from?!?!, it‘s only to
be expected
that some in the military have now thrown in the towel on the
country
they‘re being paid to defend, I guess.
Just one question: How widely shared is the good Colonel‘s Forgive
me if  I
get the rank wrong. point-of-view? Any takers???
-  J.O.A.
----Original Message Follows----
From: "Gow" 
Reply-To: army-list@CdnArmy.ca
To: 
Subject: Ottawa Citizen
Date: Wed, 24 Jan 2001 22:54:58 -0500
Note tonight‘s exerpt on the internet declaims a merger between
the USA and
Canadian Military by the year 2020 closure of Canada‘a Military
Officer
Schools, etc.
Interesting reading, regardless of which side of the inevitable
argument
you‘re on.
-----
Sent using MailStart.com   http://MailStart.Com/welcome.html  
The FREE way to access your mailbox via any web browser, anywhere!
--------------------------------------------------------
NOTE:  To remove yourself from this list, send a message
to majordomo@CdnArmy.ca from the account you wish to
remove, with the line "unsubscribe army-list" in the
message body.


----------



## army (23 Sep 2002)

Posted by *"Joan O. Arc" <joan_o_arc@hotmail.com>* on *Sun, 28 Jan 2001 02:46:27 -0000*
True enough.
There is, after all, a school of thought popular in certain mostly 
conservative political circles that as the Canadian government decided in 
the 50s and 60s to stop seriously investing in our national defense system 
and to rely heavily on our generous neighbours to the south, instead, it 
therefore follows that we might as well throw in the towel on nationhood 
sooner rather than later, since we are  - as you so ably point out - 
obviously neither willing nor able to assume the heavy burden of properly 
defending our vast territory against all comers.
I can only presume, based on your comments, that you probably concur with 
this, and I suppose the next logical step - following your reasoning, and, 
indeed, my own - is for our military and political leaders to own up to the 
corner into which we have painted ourselves over the past 40 years or so, 
largely through our failure to invest in the military and, for that matter, 
related key strategic industries and to begin "making other plans"  for our 
national resources  - As the good Colonel quoted in the *Citizen* article 
indeed seems to be doing. - instead.
Now *there*‘s an issue worthy of being addressed through one of Stockwell 
Day‘s beloved national referenda, don‘t you think?
But enough of this gloomy - and highly speculative - talk. It‘s high time to 
get back to the cap badges, or so say I... :
- Joan
----Original Message Follows----
From: m.oleary@ns.sympatico.ca
Reply-To: army-list@CdnArmy.ca
To: army-list@CdnArmy.ca
Subject: RE: RE: Re: Ottawa Citizen
Date: Sat, 27 Jan 2001 08:08:05 -0800
Personally I don‘t believe that that is a reasonable "threat"
that could realistically be met within Canadian resources military
or national. It is all too easy to conceieve outlandish "what-if"
scenarios that distract us from current issues.
So what if we did decide that the US was a material military
threat looking to steal our resources. Should we become a North
Korea, diverting so much of our national resources to counter
a paranoid-delusional threat while watching our people slowly
starve on nationally controlled minimum rations?
We need realistic objectives and missions for our Forces, defending
the Canada-US border isn‘t one of them.
Mike
PS - I am curently two weeks into a ten-week Command and Staff
Scourse, so my opportinities to review and respond on this means
will be erratic for a few more months.
--- Original Message ---
"Joan O. Arc"  Wrote on
Sat, 27 Jan 2001 07:13:59 -0000
  ------------------
Your reply is - as always - both informed and logical. It falls
down on only
one point, I think: What if the greatest threat to Canada‘s territorial
integrity/sovereignty were ever to be - hard though it may be
to imagine
such a scenario, I know - the good ol‘ US of A?
With growing power and water shortages in the American West and
with plenty
of both up here espec. in our West it isn‘t impossible to envision
a
scenario in which the temptation to make a hasty and nasty "grab"
- instead
of doing what decent nations and allies do, which is to gain
access to
neighbours‘ commodities and resources thru trade - might arise...
Nevertheless, your point about the benefits of sharing an operational
doctrine is well taken.
Good to have you back on the list. Was starting to think we had
driven you
into the wild, blue yonder.
Cheers,
Joan
----Original Message Follows----
From: m.oleary@ns.sympatico.ca
Reply-To: army-list@CdnArmy.ca
To: army-list@CdnArmy.ca
Subject: RE: Re: Ottawa Citizen
Date: Fri, 26 Jan 2001 10:00:35 -0800
Keep in mind that the article only offers "soundbites" of a discussion
with a senior officer whose job it is to explore and consider
options of evolution for our army and on a time scale that most
of us do not envision everyday, take for example the degree of
immediacy and self-interest of the problems discussed on the
Army Home Page‘s venues.
There are many facets to the Colonel‘s remarks which do not necessarily
require a leap to the reporter‘s inference that Canada‘s Army
could simply become a subordinate formation in the American Army.
As the western nations evolve more and more toward a Coalition
concept of higher level operations ex: Gulf War, the Balkans,
a greater amount of system interoperability is required in command,
control and information systems, logistic systems to ensure greater
operational flexibility and sustainment, and doctrinal approaches
to force structure and employment.
If the European nations can agree on a single currency, then
perhaps we can share an operational doctrine with the US and/or
other nations that will make us more effective in combined operations.
Mike
The Regimental Rogue
 http://regimentalrogue.tripod.com 
--- Original Message ---
"Joan O. Arc"  Wrote on
Thu, 25 Jan 2001 06:44:35 -0000
   ------------------
Aaargh! Oh well, that article only reflects the inevitable, I
suppose.
With the federal government passing "Clarity Bills" that are
neither more
nor less than recipes on "how to break up the country", and with
millions in
Canadian and, or so the rumour goes US oil $$$ being spent
to try to
foment separatism in the West and who *knows* where the money
that keeps
the separatists in Quebec afloat comes from?!?!, it‘s only to
be expected
that some in the military have now thrown in the towel on the
country
they‘re being paid to defend, I guess.
Just one question: How widely shared is the good Colonel‘s Forgive
me if  I
get the rank wrong. point-of-view? Any takers???
-  J.O.A.
----Original Message Follows----
From: "Gow" 
Reply-To: army-list@CdnArmy.ca
To: 
Subject: Ottawa Citizen
Date: Wed, 24 Jan 2001 22:54:58 -0500
Note tonight‘s exerpt on the internet declaims a merger between
the USA and
Canadian Military by the year 2020 closure of Canada‘a Military
Officer
Schools, etc.
Interesting reading, regardless of which side of the inevitable
argument
you‘re on.
-----
Sent using MailStart.com   http://MailStart.Com/welcome.html  
The FREE way to access your mailbox via any web browser, anywhere!
--------------------------------------------------------
NOTE:  To remove yourself from this list, send a message
to majordomo@CdnArmy.ca from the account you wish to
remove, with the line "unsubscribe army-list" in the
message body.
_________________________________________________________________________
Get Your Private, Free E-mail from MSN Hotmail at  http://www.hotmail.com. 
--------------------------------------------------------
NOTE:  To remove yourself from this list, send a message
to majordomo@CdnArmy.ca from the account you wish to
remove, with the line "unsubscribe army-list" in the
message body.


----------



## army (23 Sep 2002)

Posted by *"Gow" <jgow@home.com>* on *Sat, 27 Jan 2001 22:13:51 -0500*
Joan
You forget armed conflict is nearly unthinkable, especially over trade.
Therefor, the "threat" of invasion is likewise unthinkable, because of
trade.
We and they may on occasion wag the dog, so to speak, but I sincerely doubt
that our national interests will ever cause them to fight us.  Such action
would benefit no one.
Your observations in regards our nation‘s vast wealth of resources merely
indicate that Laurier was a bit precipitate in arguing which century
belonged to Canada.
John
----- Original Message -----
From: "Joan O. Arc" 
To: 
Sent: Saturday, January 27, 2001 9:46 PM
Subject: RE: RE: Re: Ottawa Citizen
> True enough.
>
> There is, after all, a school of thought popular in certain mostly
> conservative political circles that as the Canadian government decided in
> the 50s and 60s to stop seriously investing in our national defense system
> and to rely heavily on our generous neighbours to the south, instead, it
> therefore follows that we might as well throw in the towel on nationhood
> sooner rather than later, since we are  - as you so ably point out -
> obviously neither willing nor able to assume the heavy burden of properly
> defending our vast territory against all comers.
>
> I can only presume, based on your comments, that you probably concur with
> this, and I suppose the next logical step - following your reasoning, and,
> indeed, my own - is for our military and political leaders to own up to
the
> corner into which we have painted ourselves over the past 40 years or so,
> largely through our failure to invest in the military and, for that
matter,
> related key strategic industries and to begin "making other plans"  for
our
> national resources  - As the good Colonel quoted in the *Citizen* article
> indeed seems to be doing. - instead.
>
> Now *there*‘s an issue worthy of being addressed through one of Stockwell
> Day‘s beloved national referenda, don‘t you think?
>
> But enough of this gloomy - and highly speculative - talk. It‘s high time
to
> get back to the cap badges, or so say I... :
>
> - Joan
>
>
> ----Original Message Follows----
> From: m.oleary@ns.sympatico.ca
> Reply-To: army-list@CdnArmy.ca
> To: army-list@CdnArmy.ca
> Subject: RE: RE: Re: Ottawa Citizen
> Date: Sat, 27 Jan 2001 08:08:05 -0800
>
>
> Personally I don‘t believe that that is a reasonable "threat"
> that could realistically be met within Canadian resources military
> or national. It is all too easy to conceieve outlandish "what-if"
> scenarios that distract us from current issues.
>
> So what if we did decide that the US was a material military
> threat looking to steal our resources. Should we become a North
> Korea, diverting so much of our national resources to counter
> a paranoid-delusional threat while watching our people slowly
> starve on nationally controlled minimum rations?
>
> We need realistic objectives and missions for our Forces, defending
> the Canada-US border isn‘t one of them.
>
> Mike
>
> PS - I am curently two weeks into a ten-week Command and Staff
> Scourse, so my opportinities to review and respond on this means
> will be erratic for a few more months.
>
>
> --- Original Message ---
> "Joan O. Arc"  Wrote on
> Sat, 27 Jan 2001 07:13:59 -0000
>   ------------------
> Your reply is - as always - both informed and logical. It falls
> down on only
> one point, I think: What if the greatest threat to Canada‘s territorial
>
> integrity/sovereignty were ever to be - hard though it may be
> to imagine
> such a scenario, I know - the good ol‘ US of A?
>
> With growing power and water shortages in the American West and
> with plenty
> of both up here espec. in our West it isn‘t impossible to envision
> a
> scenario in which the temptation to make a hasty and nasty "grab"
> - instead
> of doing what decent nations and allies do, which is to gain
> access to
> neighbours‘ commodities and resources thru trade - might arise...
>
> Nevertheless, your point about the benefits of sharing an operational
>
> doctrine is well taken.
>
> Good to have you back on the list. Was starting to think we had
> driven you
> into the wild, blue yonder.
>
> Cheers,
>
> Joan
>
>
> ----Original Message Follows----
> From: m.oleary@ns.sympatico.ca
> Reply-To: army-list@CdnArmy.ca
> To: army-list@CdnArmy.ca
> Subject: RE: Re: Ottawa Citizen
> Date: Fri, 26 Jan 2001 10:00:35 -0800
>
>
> Keep in mind that the article only offers "soundbites" of a discussion
> with a senior officer whose job it is to explore and consider
> options of evolution for our army and on a time scale that most
> of us do not envision everyday, take for example the degree of
> immediacy and self-interest of the problems discussed on the
> Army Home Page‘s venues.
>
> There are many facets to the Colonel‘s remarks which do not necessarily
> require a leap to the reporter‘s inference that Canada‘s Army
> could simply become a subordinate formation in the American Army.
> As the western nations evolve more and more toward a Coalition
> concept of higher level operations ex: Gulf War, the Balkans,
> a greater amount of system interoperability is required in command,
> control and information systems, logistic systems to ensure greater
> operational flexibility and sustainment, and doctrinal approaches
> to force structure and employment.
>
> If the European nations can agree on a single currency, then
> perhaps we can share an operational doctrine with the US and/or
> other nations that will make us more effective in combined operations.
>
> Mike
>
> The Regimental Rogue
>  http://regimentalrogue.tripod.com 
>
>
>
> --- Original Message ---
> "Joan O. Arc"  Wrote on
> Thu, 25 Jan 2001 06:44:35 -0000
>    ------------------
> Aaargh! Oh well, that article only reflects the inevitable, I
> suppose.
>
> With the federal government passing "Clarity Bills" that are
> neither more
> nor less than recipes on "how to break up the country", and with
> millions in
> Canadian and, or so the rumour goes US oil $$$ being spent
> to try to
> foment separatism in the West and who *knows* where the money
> that keeps
> the separatists in Quebec afloat comes from?!?!, it‘s only to
> be expected
> that some in the military have now thrown in the towel on the
> country
> they‘re being paid to defend, I guess.
>
> Just one question: How widely shared is the good Colonel‘s Forgive
> me if  I
> get the rank wrong. point-of-view? Any takers???
>
>
> -  J.O.A.
>
> ----Original Message Follows----
> From: "Gow" 
> Reply-To: army-list@CdnArmy.ca
> To: 
> Subject: Ottawa Citizen
> Date: Wed, 24 Jan 2001 22:54:58 -0500
>
> Note tonight‘s exerpt on the internet declaims a merger between
> the USA and
> Canadian Military by the year 2020 closure of Canada‘a Military
> Officer
> Schools, etc.
>
> Interesting reading, regardless of which side of the inevitable
> argument
> you‘re on.
>
>
> -----
> Sent using MailStart.com   http://MailStart.Com/welcome.html  
> The FREE way to access your mailbox via any web browser, anywhere!
>
> --------------------------------------------------------
> NOTE:  To remove yourself from this list, send a message
> to majordomo@CdnArmy.ca from the account you wish to
> remove, with the line "unsubscribe army-list" in the
> message body.
>
> _________________________________________________________________________
> Get Your Private, Free E-mail from MSN Hotmail at  http://www.hotmail.com. 
>
> --------------------------------------------------------
> NOTE:  To remove yourself from this list, send a message
> to majordomo@CdnArmy.ca from the account you wish to
> remove, with the line "unsubscribe army-list" in the
> message body.
--------------------------------------------------------
NOTE:  To remove yourself from this list, send a message
to majordomo@CdnArmy.ca from the account you wish to
remove, with the line "unsubscribe army-list" in the
message body.


----------



## army (23 Sep 2002)

Posted by *"Ian Edwards" <iedwards@home.com>* on *Sat, 27 Jan 2001 23:14:39 -0700*
I don‘t understand the reasoning of any "school of thought" that would argue
that because Canada has stopped seriously investing in defence that Canada
might as well throw in the towel on nationhood. Couple of big assumptions
here. First that we are not seriously investing in our defence begs the
question what is a serious amount and what is the purpose of such defence?
Defending our property against all comers: I would suggest that only the US,
Russian and China are capable of such a defence of their own land without
help from any allies and even then not with ease.
But I didn‘t receive the URL of the original posting, and so do not know
what the Colonel? was reported as saying. I do know a lot more about cap
badges but not as much as I thought I knew 30 years ago. Here‘s a little
quiz for you. What cap badge was worn by members of the 2nd Aerodrome
Defence Company in WW2? Ditto members of The Canadian Film  Photo Unit?
----- Original Message -----
From: Joan O. Arc 
To: 
Sent: Saturday, January 27, 2001 7:46 PM
Subject: RE: RE: Re: Ottawa Citizen
> True enough.
>
> There is, after all, a school of thought popular in certain mostly
> conservative political circles that as the Canadian government decided in
> the 50s and 60s to stop seriously investing in our national defense system
> and to rely heavily on our generous neighbours to the south, instead, it
> therefore follows that we might as well throw in the towel on nationhood
> sooner rather than later, since we are  - as you so ably point out -
> obviously neither willing nor able to assume the heavy burden of properly
> defending our vast territory against all comers.
>
> I can only presume, based on your comments, that you probably concur with
> this, and I suppose the next logical step - following your reasoning, and,
> indeed, my own - is for our military and political leaders to own up to
the
> corner into which we have painted ourselves over the past 40 years or so,
> largely through our failure to invest in the military and, for that
matter,
> related key strategic industries and to begin "making other plans"  for
our
> national resources  - As the good Colonel quoted in the *Citizen* article
> indeed seems to be doing. - instead.
>
> Now *there*‘s an issue worthy of being addressed through one of Stockwell
> Day‘s beloved national referenda, don‘t you think?
>
> But enough of this gloomy - and highly speculative - talk. It‘s high time
to
> get back to the cap badges, or so say I... :
>
> - Joan
>
>
> ----Original Message Follows----
> From: m.oleary@ns.sympatico.ca
> Reply-To: army-list@CdnArmy.ca
> To: army-list@CdnArmy.ca
> Subject: RE: RE: Re: Ottawa Citizen
> Date: Sat, 27 Jan 2001 08:08:05 -0800
>
>
> Personally I don‘t believe that that is a reasonable "threat"
> that could realistically be met within Canadian resources military
> or national. It is all too easy to conceieve outlandish "what-if"
> scenarios that distract us from current issues.
>
> So what if we did decide that the US was a material military
> threat looking to steal our resources. Should we become a North
> Korea, diverting so much of our national resources to counter
> a paranoid-delusional threat while watching our people slowly
> starve on nationally controlled minimum rations?
>
> We need realistic objectives and missions for our Forces, defending
> the Canada-US border isn‘t one of them.
>
> Mike
>
> PS - I am curently two weeks into a ten-week Command and Staff
> Scourse, so my opportinities to review and respond on this means
> will be erratic for a few more months.
>
>
> --- Original Message ---
> "Joan O. Arc"  Wrote on
> Sat, 27 Jan 2001 07:13:59 -0000
>   ------------------
> Your reply is - as always - both informed and logical. It falls
> down on only
> one point, I think: What if the greatest threat to Canada‘s territorial
>
> integrity/sovereignty were ever to be - hard though it may be
> to imagine
> such a scenario, I know - the good ol‘ US of A?
>
> With growing power and water shortages in the American West and
> with plenty
> of both up here espec. in our West it isn‘t impossible to envision
> a
> scenario in which the temptation to make a hasty and nasty "grab"
> - instead
> of doing what decent nations and allies do, which is to gain
> access to
> neighbours‘ commodities and resources thru trade - might arise...
>
> Nevertheless, your point about the benefits of sharing an operational
>
> doctrine is well taken.
>
> Good to have you back on the list. Was starting to think we had
> driven you
> into the wild, blue yonder.
>
> Cheers,
>
> Joan
>
>
> ----Original Message Follows----
> From: m.oleary@ns.sympatico.ca
> Reply-To: army-list@CdnArmy.ca
> To: army-list@CdnArmy.ca
> Subject: RE: Re: Ottawa Citizen
> Date: Fri, 26 Jan 2001 10:00:35 -0800
>
>
> Keep in mind that the article only offers "soundbites" of a discussion
> with a senior officer whose job it is to explore and consider
> options of evolution for our army and on a time scale that most
> of us do not envision everyday, take for example the degree of
> immediacy and self-interest of the problems discussed on the
> Army Home Page‘s venues.
>
> There are many facets to the Colonel‘s remarks which do not necessarily
> require a leap to the reporter‘s inference that Canada‘s Army
> could simply become a subordinate formation in the American Army.
> As the western nations evolve more and more toward a Coalition
> concept of higher level operations ex: Gulf War, the Balkans,
> a greater amount of system interoperability is required in command,
> control and information systems, logistic systems to ensure greater
> operational flexibility and sustainment, and doctrinal approaches
> to force structure and employment.
>
> If the European nations can agree on a single currency, then
> perhaps we can share an operational doctrine with the US and/or
> other nations that will make us more effective in combined operations.
>
> Mike
>
> The Regimental Rogue
>  http://regimentalrogue.tripod.com 
>
>
>
> --- Original Message ---
> "Joan O. Arc"  Wrote on
> Thu, 25 Jan 2001 06:44:35 -0000
>    ------------------
> Aaargh! Oh well, that article only reflects the inevitable, I
> suppose.
>
> With the federal government passing "Clarity Bills" that are
> neither more
> nor less than recipes on "how to break up the country", and with
> millions in
> Canadian and, or so the rumour goes US oil $$$ being spent
> to try to
> foment separatism in the West and who *knows* where the money
> that keeps
> the separatists in Quebec afloat comes from?!?!, it‘s only to
> be expected
> that some in the military have now thrown in the towel on the
> country
> they‘re being paid to defend, I guess.
>
> Just one question: How widely shared is the good Colonel‘s Forgive
> me if  I
> get the rank wrong. point-of-view? Any takers???
>
>
> -  J.O.A.
>
> ----Original Message Follows----
> From: "Gow" 
> Reply-To: army-list@CdnArmy.ca
> To: 
> Subject: Ottawa Citizen
> Date: Wed, 24 Jan 2001 22:54:58 -0500
>
> Note tonight‘s exerpt on the internet declaims a merger between
> the USA and
> Canadian Military by the year 2020 closure of Canada‘a Military
> Officer
> Schools, etc.
>
> Interesting reading, regardless of which side of the inevitable
> argument
> you‘re on.
>
>
> -----
> Sent using MailStart.com   http://MailStart.Com/welcome.html  
> The FREE way to access your mailbox via any web browser, anywhere!
>
> --------------------------------------------------------
> NOTE:  To remove yourself from this list, send a message
> to majordomo@CdnArmy.ca from the account you wish to
> remove, with the line "unsubscribe army-list" in the
> message body.
>
> _________________________________________________________________________
> Get Your Private, Free E-mail from MSN Hotmail at  http://www.hotmail.com. 
>
> --------------------------------------------------------
> NOTE:  To remove yourself from this list, send a message
> to majordomo@CdnArmy.ca from the account you wish to
> remove, with the line "unsubscribe army-list" in the
> message body.
--------------------------------------------------------
NOTE:  To remove yourself from this list, send a message
to majordomo@CdnArmy.ca from the account you wish to
remove, with the line "unsubscribe army-list" in the
message body.


----------



## army (23 Sep 2002)

Posted by *"dave newcombe" <dave.newcombe@home.com>* on *Sun, 28 Jan 2001 10:25:10 -0800*
As we share so much of our history with the USA, and with our locations...it
is inevitable that we share the future as well.  What ever form that is will
always be a topic of debate.  We already have a unique cultural, social and
economic union, far more entrenched than the E.U. will ever be.  Our
political status will remain as is unless one of our countries changes
changes drastically... fragmentation...?.
I believe the USA is the second greatest nation on earth to live in, not a
bad place at all.  I just happen to be lucky enough to be in the best place
of all.
The fact remains that we could not defend ourselves against them, or many
other countries.  It is far better to operate with them, learn thier ways
and profit from them.   If we learn to mesh with thier forces, thats
fine...But we should always have our distinctive Canadian identity.
blah blah blah......ad nauseum
--------------------------------------------------------
NOTE:  To remove yourself from this list, send a message
to majordomo@CdnArmy.ca from the account you wish to
remove, with the line "unsubscribe army-list" in the
message body.


----------



## army (23 Sep 2002)

Posted by *Juno847627709@aol.com* on *Sun, 28 Jan 2001 13:59:28 EST*
>From a rookie‘s point of view, I agree Dave.
    I think its good to operate with them, etc., but I don‘t think the ties 
should be so strong that we forget that we are of a different nationality. 
Canadians have distinguished themselves so well in former years, I just hope 
that, for whatever reason if there was another medium-large scale 
conventional war, we‘d be a force to be reckonned with. Whether it be by 
starting out with a strong military, or just having droves of volunteers as 
was the case with our past major wars.
    For me, its hard to balance that against modern methods of taking care of 
things politically, before fighting starts. I personally, in my inexperience, 
can‘t forsee an instance where there‘s be a lot of conventional fighting 
involving heavy use of ground forces, involving Canada, but I‘m sure someone 
can spike that back at me.
    Please do.
    But with all the treaties and and pacts, etc. now, if there was a war 
waged with more than 2 nations involved, and NATO or UNdifference? was 
involved in the actual fighting, would the contingents of the contributing 
countries fight independantly, in there own sector? I mean would there be 
like Canadians here, Americans over there, Brits over there, FrenchFrogs, 
John? JK over there? Basially how it was in much earlier wars, or would 
there just be fragments of armies everywhere? That wouldn‘t seem too 
practical, having Brigades or Divisions scattered all over the place, but I 
donno.
    So how would that work? Assuming there‘s a lot of ground to be covered
        Thanks all.
                        -matt b

--------------------------------------------------------
NOTE:  To remove yourself from this list, send a message
to majordomo@CdnArmy.ca from the account you wish to
remove, with the line "unsubscribe army-list" in the
message body.


----------



## army (23 Sep 2002)

Posted by *"Donald Schepens" <a.schepens@home.com>* on *Sun, 28 Jan 2001 20:07:37 -0700*
You have to remember that this speculation is by Col Howie Marsh.  His job
is to look for possibilities he is paid to think and look at
possiblilities.  It may have little to do with the truth.  Having said
this, 50 years ago we were effectively indistinguishable as a part of  the
"Greater" British Army.
----- Original Message -----
From: Ian Edwards 
To: 
Sent: Saturday, January 27, 2001 11:14 PM
Subject: Ottawa Citizen
> I don‘t understand the reasoning of any "school of thought" that would
argue
> that because Canada has stopped seriously investing in defence that Canada
> might as well throw in the towel on nationhood. Couple of big assumptions
> here. First that we are not seriously investing in our defence begs the
> question what is a serious amount and what is the purpose of such defence?
> Defending our property against all comers: I would suggest that only the
US,
> Russian and China are capable of such a defence of their own land without
> help from any allies and even then not with ease.
>
> But I didn‘t receive the URL of the original posting, and so do not know
> what the Colonel? was reported as saying. I do know a lot more about cap
> badges but not as much as I thought I knew 30 years ago. Here‘s a little
> quiz for you. What cap badge was worn by members of the 2nd Aerodrome
> Defence Company in WW2? Ditto members of The Canadian Film  Photo Unit?
>
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: Joan O. Arc 
> To: 
> Sent: Saturday, January 27, 2001 7:46 PM
> Subject: RE: RE: Re: Ottawa Citizen
>
>
> > True enough.
> >
> > There is, after all, a school of thought popular in certain mostly
> > conservative political circles that as the Canadian government decided
in
> > the 50s and 60s to stop seriously investing in our national defense
system
> > and to rely heavily on our generous neighbours to the south, instead, it
> > therefore follows that we might as well throw in the towel on nationhood
> > sooner rather than later, since we are  - as you so ably point out -
> > obviously neither willing nor able to assume the heavy burden of
properly
> > defending our vast territory against all comers.
> >
> > I can only presume, based on your comments, that you probably concur
with
> > this, and I suppose the next logical step - following your reasoning,
and,
> > indeed, my own - is for our military and political leaders to own up to
> the
> > corner into which we have painted ourselves over the past 40 years or
so,
> > largely through our failure to invest in the military and, for that
> matter,
> > related key strategic industries and to begin "making other plans"  for
> our
> > national resources  - As the good Colonel quoted in the *Citizen*
article
> > indeed seems to be doing. - instead.
> >
> > Now *there*‘s an issue worthy of being addressed through one of
Stockwell
> > Day‘s beloved national referenda, don‘t you think?
> >
> > But enough of this gloomy - and highly speculative - talk. It‘s high
time
> to
> > get back to the cap badges, or so say I... :
> >
> > - Joan
> >
> >
> > ----Original Message Follows----
> > From: m.oleary@ns.sympatico.ca
> > Reply-To: army-list@CdnArmy.ca
> > To: army-list@CdnArmy.ca
> > Subject: RE: RE: Re: Ottawa Citizen
> > Date: Sat, 27 Jan 2001 08:08:05 -0800
> >
> >
> > Personally I don‘t believe that that is a reasonable "threat"
> > that could realistically be met within Canadian resources military
> > or national. It is all too easy to conceieve outlandish "what-if"
> > scenarios that distract us from current issues.
> >
> > So what if we did decide that the US was a material military
> > threat looking to steal our resources. Should we become a North
> > Korea, diverting so much of our national resources to counter
> > a paranoid-delusional threat while watching our people slowly
> > starve on nationally controlled minimum rations?
> >
> > We need realistic objectives and missions for our Forces, defending
> > the Canada-US border isn‘t one of them.
> >
> > Mike
> >
> > PS - I am curently two weeks into a ten-week Command and Staff
> > Scourse, so my opportinities to review and respond on this means
> > will be erratic for a few more months.
> >
> >
> > --- Original Message ---
> > "Joan O. Arc"  Wrote on
> > Sat, 27 Jan 2001 07:13:59 -0000
> >   ------------------
> > Your reply is - as always - both informed and logical. It falls
> > down on only
> > one point, I think: What if the greatest threat to Canada‘s territorial
> >
> > integrity/sovereignty were ever to be - hard though it may be
> > to imagine
> > such a scenario, I know - the good ol‘ US of A?
> >
> > With growing power and water shortages in the American West and
> > with plenty
> > of both up here espec. in our West it isn‘t impossible to envision
> > a
> > scenario in which the temptation to make a hasty and nasty "grab"
> > - instead
> > of doing what decent nations and allies do, which is to gain
> > access to
> > neighbours‘ commodities and resources thru trade - might arise...
> >
> > Nevertheless, your point about the benefits of sharing an operational
> >
> > doctrine is well taken.
> >
> > Good to have you back on the list. Was starting to think we had
> > driven you
> > into the wild, blue yonder.
> >
> > Cheers,
> >
> > Joan
> >
> >
> > ----Original Message Follows----
> > From: m.oleary@ns.sympatico.ca
> > Reply-To: army-list@CdnArmy.ca
> > To: army-list@CdnArmy.ca
> > Subject: RE: Re: Ottawa Citizen
> > Date: Fri, 26 Jan 2001 10:00:35 -0800
> >
> >
> > Keep in mind that the article only offers "soundbites" of a discussion
> > with a senior officer whose job it is to explore and consider
> > options of evolution for our army and on a time scale that most
> > of us do not envision everyday, take for example the degree of
> > immediacy and self-interest of the problems discussed on the
> > Army Home Page‘s venues.
> >
> > There are many facets to the Colonel‘s remarks which do not necessarily
> > require a leap to the reporter‘s inference that Canada‘s Army
> > could simply become a subordinate formation in the American Army.
> > As the western nations evolve more and more toward a Coalition
> > concept of higher level operations ex: Gulf War, the Balkans,
> > a greater amount of system interoperability is required in command,
> > control and information systems, logistic systems to ensure greater
> > operational flexibility and sustainment, and doctrinal approaches
> > to force structure and employment.
> >
> > If the European nations can agree on a single currency, then
> > perhaps we can share an operational doctrine with the US and/or
> > other nations that will make us more effective in combined operations.
> >
> > Mike
> >
> > The Regimental Rogue
> >  http://regimentalrogue.tripod.com 
> >
> >
> >
> > --- Original Message ---
> > "Joan O. Arc"  Wrote on
> > Thu, 25 Jan 2001 06:44:35 -0000
> >    ------------------
> > Aaargh! Oh well, that article only reflects the inevitable, I
> > suppose.
> >
> > With the federal government passing "Clarity Bills" that are
> > neither more
> > nor less than recipes on "how to break up the country", and with
> > millions in
> > Canadian and, or so the rumour goes US oil $$$ being spent
> > to try to
> > foment separatism in the West and who *knows* where the money
> > that keeps
> > the separatists in Quebec afloat comes from?!?!, it‘s only to
> > be expected
> > that some in the military have now thrown in the towel on the
> > country
> > they‘re being paid to defend, I guess.
> >
> > Just one question: How widely shared is the good Colonel‘s Forgive
> > me if  I
> > get the rank wrong. point-of-view? Any takers???
> >
> >
> > -  J.O.A.
> >
> > ----Original Message Follows----
> > From: "Gow" 
> > Reply-To: army-list@CdnArmy.ca
> > To: 
> > Subject: Ottawa Citizen
> > Date: Wed, 24 Jan 2001 22:54:58 -0500
> >
> > Note tonight‘s exerpt on the internet declaims a merger between
> > the USA and
> > Canadian Military by the year 2020 closure of Canada‘a Military
> > Officer
> > Schools, etc.
> >
> > Interesting reading, regardless of which side of the inevitable
> > argument
> > you‘re on.
> >
> >
> > -----
> > Sent using MailStart.com   http://MailStart.Com/welcome.html  
> > The FREE way to access your mailbox via any web browser, anywhere!
> >
> > --------------------------------------------------------
> > NOTE:  To remove yourself from this list, send a message
> > to majordomo@CdnArmy.ca from the account you wish to
> > remove, with the line "unsubscribe army-list" in the
> > message body.
> >
> >
_________________________________________________________________________
> > Get Your Private, Free E-mail from MSN Hotmail at
 http://www.hotmail.com. 
> >
> > --------------------------------------------------------
> > NOTE:  To remove yourself from this list, send a message
> > to majordomo@CdnArmy.ca from the account you wish to
> > remove, with the line "unsubscribe army-list" in the
> > message body.
>
> --------------------------------------------------------
> NOTE:  To remove yourself from this list, send a message
> to majordomo@CdnArmy.ca from the account you wish to
> remove, with the line "unsubscribe army-list" in the
> message body.
--------------------------------------------------------
NOTE:  To remove yourself from this list, send a message
to majordomo@CdnArmy.ca from the account you wish to
remove, with the line "unsubscribe army-list" in the
message body.


----------

