# American wishlist for us.



## JasonH (18 Feb 2005)

Cellucci offers wish list for our military
Boost troop strength, work on high tech, he says

Urges creation of fleet of heavy-lift aircraft


MIRO CERNETIG
QUEBEC BUREAU CHIEF

Montrealâ â€Officials contemplating how to revamp Canada's military strategy don't have to second-guess what the United States wants â â€ U.S. Ambassador Paul Cellucci delivered his country's wish list yesterday.

Canada can make significant contribution to the western alliance in three ways, Cellucci told a foreign policy conference at the McGill Institute for the Study of Canada:

Concentrate on enhancing communications technology, remote surveillance techniques and the analyzing of satellite imagery. These services have the benefit of being high-tech tasks that can be accomplished on Canadian soil, meaning they are less of a strain on the tight military budget. Moreover, it allows Canada to fully use the classified information it receives from the United States as a trusted ally.

Build up the Canadian military's troop strength. Cellucci said the U.S. would like to see Canada develop another elite commando squadron that could be deployed quickly to crisis zones. He praised Canada's Joint Task Force 2 (JTF2) commando team, which he said is one of the world's best elite commando operations and played a significant role in the rebuilding of Afghanistan.

Create a fleet of heavy-lift aircraft so Canada need no longer rent such planes from other countries. "The tsunami is an example." Cellucci said. "The DART team got there and did great work, but they got there two weeks after the tidal wave. U.S. helicopters were there right away bringing in food and water to people who would have died...

"I'm saying those are three areas where Canada can really punch above its weight and make significant contributions around the world," he told the conference, which is called Canada in the World.

Foreign Affairs Minister Pierre Pettigrew is expected to address that question today in a speech.

Finally, Cellucci said that Canada should join the U.S.'s continental missile defence shield. Not doing so, he said, might mean sovereignty could "be ceded to another country" should terrorists send a missile to Canada.

Although there have been some glaring failures in the testing of the missile shield, including one this week, Cellucci dismissed critics predicting the defence system will be a multi-billion dollar white elephant.

"That's what they told the Wright brothers," said Cellucci. "We will deploy... We do hope Canada will make a positive decision to be a full participant."

Cellucci said that the United States is trying to tell its allies that despite its superpower status, it "can't do it alone" when it comes to ensuring world stability. He also said that it is the U.S. view that the best way to beat poverty and ensure stability is not only foreign aid, which he said can have only limited effect, but rather by establishing democracy and free trade around the world. 

Cellucci, who is leaving his post March 18, ended his speech by remarking that Canada and the U.S. are not just allies, but friends sharing a continent.

http://www.thestar.com/NASApp/cs/ContentServer?pagename=thestar/Layout/Article_Type1&c=Article&cid=1108680613147&call_pageid=970599119419


----------



## x-grunt (18 Feb 2005)

> Not doing so, he said, might mean sovereignty could "be ceded to another country" should terrorists send a missile to Canada.



Just what the heck does that mean? Sounds ominous.


----------



## big_johnson1 (18 Feb 2005)

Exactly what I thought.. Sounds like a thinly veiled threat


----------



## Michael Dorosh (18 Feb 2005)

What threat?  What kind of cereal did you have for breakfast, what kind of running shoes do you wear, what kind of car do you drive and what did you watch on TV last night?

Jon Stewart was pretty funny, actually.  Last night he talked about the tar sands in Alberta, and asked his guest "why not invade Canada instead of Syria" when his guest said how much oil we have here.   He went on to say "we could do it tonight if we wanted" then leaned into the camera and said "Hellllooo Calgary......"

;D

Great stuff.


----------



## farmer/soldier (18 Feb 2005)

Regardless of the threat nature of his comment, by extension Canada has already thought of ceding its sovereignty to the United States.  There was a poll on the Globe and Mail a while back that asked if Canada should pay the US to defend us rather then spend the money to revamp the Canadian Military, so the sentiment is already present. Personally I agree with his need for Canada to spend more, but I do believe that the Ambassador is doing more harm then good when he goes out and pushes a US wish list for Canada.  I am relatively pro-American, but there are many people who are not and despise US interference or advice in how Canada should be run.  That being said, the next federal budget should tell whether the US gets its wishlist or not.


----------



## Matt_Fisher (18 Feb 2005)

The wishlist is nothing more than international diplomacy.

Canada wants the Americans to drop the ban on Canadian beef and the tariffs on lumber.   Cellucci's comments are just a parallel of this type of international lobbying, but in the defense area.

This kind of international pressure on Canada to spend more on defense has been around for years.   Cellucci's comments should really be seen as nothing new.


----------



## S McKee (18 Feb 2005)

We've already ceded our sovereignty. Any nation that consciously and deliberately fails in   its responsibilty to adequately defend itself and relies solely on the military power of another is not a sovereign nation, IMHO. Just thank your lucky stars the US is our friend.


----------



## Kurhaus (18 Feb 2005)

The US may be our friend but they still have a "Manifest Destiny" to occupy the entire North American continent. However, in regard to Canada, instead of expending resources invading, they are content to assimilate our culture quietly through their state controlled media, business mergers and US products.   

This wishlist is just another "Borg implant to assimilate us into their collective."(sorry non-Trekkie's, but the analogy fits fits like a glove).   I agree that on the surface it is political maneuvering towards better cross border relations, but keep in mind that politics is a chess game, every move is strategic.      

And if you study history there is one common denominator, 

Empires expand and then eventually Fall.   It may take centuries, but the US will be no different.


----------



## Kirkhill (18 Feb 2005)

Have any of you considered this option?

Country X detonates unspecified device delivered by unspecified means in suitably critical part of Canada.

Informs Government of Canada that there are 4 more just like that in Ottawa, Toronto, Montreal and Vancouver.

In exchange for leaving these cities intact Country X would appreciate the opportunity to contribute to Canadian society by expanding the terminal facilities at Prince Rupert, supplying new export opportunities for Canadian oil companies and in order to protect their investment want to base a division of troops along the Yellowhead.

The Americans suggest a degree of discomfort with the possibility.

To whom would the Government cede sovereignty given that it would be incapable of keeping either or both parties out of its borders?

Ceding sovereignty can take many forms.


----------



## daniel h. (18 Feb 2005)

Kirkhill said:
			
		

> Have any of you considered this option?
> 
> Country X detonates unspecified device delivered by unspecified means in suitably critical part of Canada.
> 
> ...




Everybody sounds like me today. Regarding an attack, IIRC the Americans, under our anti-terrorism bill in Canada, are allowed to put troops on our soil under any circumstance they deem to be a "crisis".

regarding John Stewart, the physicist on his show pointed out that Canada would be much harder to occupy than Iraq--Stewart's comments that they could take us tonight is ridiculous, due to our size, ferocity of our soldiers. We could be invaded, but holding us wouldn't be feasible IMO if Canadians decided to fight. 

It is also unnecessary for the Americans to invade us as they already own most of our oil anway, and under NAFTA they get 66% of our production at 66 cents to the dollar whether we face a shortage or not.


----------



## CupFrantic (18 Feb 2005)

I totally agree the USA will never invede us when they could easily just invade us economicly which they already have or atleasst partially.
Nothing new with the ambassadors comments, but I have to say I never really liked the guy, although I don't know why.

P.S If they every invade us, I would be waiting for them in Northern Ontario with my 30-06 aimed and ready. atleast I would get one of them  before they dropped a million dollar bomb on me. LOL              Talk about overkill yet they do that in Iraq.


----------



## Kirkhill (18 Feb 2005)

Besides, it's more profitable to sell them what they are looking for than waste money trying to defend it just to keep it in the ground. ;D


----------



## Pencil Tech (18 Feb 2005)

OK, OK, OK. We need to spend more on defence, a lot more on defence, like 6 billion a year more on defence IMHO. Even more. But I am getting tired of Paul Celucci popping up almost every month telling us about it for the umpteenth time. And he's been referred to as the "outgoing" U.S. ambassador since what seems like ages - Paul, how can we miss you if you won't go?!   :rage:


----------



## Ralph Wigum (18 Feb 2005)

If anyone invaded us in the summer they would be like forget this once our beautiful winter comes around lol :dontpanic:


----------



## Kirkhill (18 Feb 2005)

> OK, OK, OK. We need to spend more on defence, a lot more on defence, like 6 billion a year more on defence IMHO. Even more. But I am getting tired of Paul Celucci popping up almost every month telling us about it for the umpteenth time.



Have you ever spent anytime in adjoining hotel rooms with a buddy and kept the door between the rooms open?  Pretty easy to come and go, right?

Well your buddy is feeling a draft so he closes his window and asks you to do the same.  Otherwise he is going to have to close the connecting door.

Well the Yanks are feeling a draft and we're not closing the window.  Sooner or later they are going to get fed up asking us nicely and will just close the door.


----------



## squealiox (18 Feb 2005)

i wish celucci would go around saying "you don't need a military. we'll take care of you."
you can bet there'd be a public clamour for more defence spending after that


----------



## daniel h. (18 Feb 2005)

Ralph Wigum said:
			
		

> If anyone invaded us in the summer they would be like forget this once our beautiful winter comes around lol :dontpanic:




Especially considering most U.S. soldiers come from thee southern states.


On another track, anyone else feel Cellucci is simply lobbying for Boeing when he mentions strategic airlifters?


----------



## pbi (18 Feb 2005)

While I believe that Ambassador Celucci means well, I think that he is risking a possible backlash that will hurt not him, but us in the military. Remember (if you need reminding...) that anti-Americanism is just below the surface in many Canadians, and often present most strongly in those same Canadians who are already uncertain about (or opposed to...) meaningful defence spending in this country. The danger that I see is that the very legitimate and necessary increase to our budget may be seen (and resisted) by a large number of Canadian voters as being "_just 'cause the Yanks told us to_" which, I fear, will not go well for us. Far better that the US quietly apply discreet pressures (or better yet, incentives) in other venues, to kick start the GoC into action.

Cheers


----------



## daniel h. (19 Feb 2005)

pbi said:
			
		

> While I believe that Ambassador Celucci means well, I think that he is risking a possible backlash that will hurt not him, but us in the military. Remember (if you need reminding...) that anti-Americanism is just below the surface in many Canadians, and often present most strongly in those same Canadians who are already uncertain about (or opposed to...) meaningful defence spending in this country. The danger that I see is that the very legitimate and necessary increase to our budget may be seen (and resisted) by a large number of Canadian voters as being "_just 'cause the Yanks told us to_" which, I fear, will not go well for us. Far better that the US quietly apply discreet pressures (or better yet, incentives) in other venues, to kick start the GoC into action.
> 
> Cheers




I understand exactly what you mean, which is maybe what some people want in the government, who knows.

I think it is unfair to call Canadians "anti-American" for disagreeing or rejecting America, as in a democracy disagreeing shouldn't make us anti anything.


----------



## DBA (19 Feb 2005)

No but when an MP says on parliament hill that she hates those damm Americans that is not disagreeing with them. Thats anti-Americanism and at times it seems fairly wide spread. 

This wishlist is a pretty mild request and mostly what DND seems to already be looking at. Kinda sad when the anti-American crowd spews so many vile wishes about what the states should do that they then feign shock about getting suggestions on what to do from them.


----------



## big bad john (19 Feb 2005)

Smacks of prejudice to me.


----------



## Ex-Dragoon (19 Feb 2005)

daniel h said:


> Especially considering most U.S. soldiers come from thee southern states.



Really? Do you have a stat to back that up?


----------



## DBA (19 Feb 2005)

Going by the FY 2002 Population Representation in the Military Services report http://www.humrro.org/poprep2002/index.htm under Chapter 2, Characteristics of Active Component Accessions, Geography sub section the statement is false.


----------



## DJL (19 Feb 2005)

http://www.humrro.org/poprep2002/summary/summary.htm




> Geographic Representation. During the past several years, the percentage of new recruits from the Northeast region has decreased with a corresponding increase in the percentage of recruits from the West region. The geographic distribution of enlisted active accessions for FY 2002 shows that the South, and in particular the West South Central and South Atlantic Divisions of this region, continued to have the greatest representation.* More than 40 percent of NPS accessions hailed from the South*. *In fact, this was the only region to be slightly overrepresented  among enlisted accessions compared to its proportion of 18-24 year-olds.* The representation ratio (percentage of accessions divided by percentage of 18-24 year-olds from the region) for NPS active accessions from the South was 1.2, compared to 0.8 for the Northeast and 0.9 for the North Central and West.


----------



## DBA (19 Feb 2005)

You can't really go from "Of the four regions in the US, the south provides the most members to the armed forces."  to "Most soldiers come from the southern states." The second by leaving out the basis for comparison hints that southern soldiers outnumber all others combined and thats not the case.


----------



## S McKee (21 Feb 2005)

Kurhaus said:
			
		

> The US may be our friend but they still have a "Manifest Destiny" to occupy the entire North American continent. However, in regard to Canada, instead of expending resources invading, they are content to assimilate our culture quietly through their state controlled media, business mergers and US products.
> 
> This wishlist is just another "Borg implant to assimilate us into their collective."(sorry non-Trekkie's, but the analogy fits fits like a glove).   I agree that on the surface it is political maneuvering towards better cross border relations, but keep in mind that politics is a chess game, every move is strategic.
> 
> ...



The Borg? "Empires expand then eventually fall", are you referring to the evil Terran Empire (Mirror universe)? Remember the Borg (US in your case)assimilate for  the benefit of the collective "We will add your distinctiveness to our own.".  Resistance is futile. Live long and prosper.


----------



## Bruce Monkhouse (21 Feb 2005)

KEEP THIS ON TOPIC,.............


----------



## pbi (22 Feb 2005)

daniel h. said:
			
		

> I understand exactly what you mean, which is maybe what some people want in the government, who knows.
> 
> I think it is unfair to call Canadians "anti-American" for disagreeing or rejecting America, as in a democracy disagreeing shouldn't make us anti anything.


I didn't make that statement: please examine what I wrote. What I stated was my belief that there is a large wellspring of latent anti-Americanism in this country (I think that is not an outrageuos assertion) Further, I suggested that this same anti-Americanism might be deployed or utilized by those opposed to increased defence spending in this country.

I see nothing wrong with disagreeing with the US, provided our disagreement is intelligently based on a logical argument as opposed to visceral knee-jerk anti-Americanism, which IMHO only serves to cloud the issue at hand and make us look as stupid as some of the right-wing xenophobes who surface in the US political culture from time to time, but who do not represent the US mainstream.

Cheers


----------

