# Why does Canada need an army?



## Beatty1

Hello everyone, I would like to know why a country such as Canada needs an army.  I'm certain that one of the most obvious point, is to protect ourselves. And yes I know this seams like a juvenile question, but I'm hoping to see some in depth, and interesting comments.


----------



## Ex-Dragoon

OK why would you think we would not need one?


----------



## Beatty1

Although I completely agree with you, there are some arguments (as ignorant as they are): Who would want to attack Canada?  And also the states would protect us! 

I know everyone could shut those down in an instant. That's not the point; I know that we help out overseas, and in our back yards in time of crisis. Why do I a student in the middle of the prairies need an army? What benefits does it give me, everyone. I have quiet of few ideas in my head but I want to get a good look on different ideas.


----------



## jonsey

Who else would protect us? The U.S.A.? Not every Canadian agrees with U.S. policy. What about our soldiers, what will they do? Not having an army would put a lot of people on unemployment, unless there was an agreement with another Military, which would most likely be the U.S. Military. And as I said above, not everyone agrees with U.S. Policy. We need our own Military because we need to protect our borders, our policies and our way of life (no matter how close we are to the "American" way of life, we‘re still different). 


Many Canadians say that we don‘t need one because we don‘t "piss anyone off" and think that Canada would never have our own 9-11. That‘s a bunch of crap, in my opinion, and even if we never did, would you want to take the chance? 


Why do you think we don‘t need a Military?


EDIT:: Then there‘s also the respect issue, how would our alies and trade partners see us if we decide to basically say "we‘re going to leech off of you guys instead of sticking up for ourselves. We‘re also going to forget about lending a hand in international affairs."


----------



## Gryphon

alright, first of all.. why does Canada need an army? well, first off, let me fix some misconceptions about the army.. we are not only here to jump into action if anything is amiss in the world.. we are also here to cater to the canadian disasters.. and there is no shortage of those here in Canada.

secondly   





> And also the states would protect us!


but the question is, do we WANT the states to protect us? no! basically it would be saying that we don‘t give a flying ****, take away our independance! govern us..

Whisky tango foxtrot?


----------



## Beatty1

I completely agree with you on the US thing.
But on the crisis part, couldn‘t there be a different organization to do this? (And again i want to enfasize i‘m not anti-military, i‘m just asking the question as someone who is joining that reserves, and wants to get others prespectives.)

I think Jonsey has a great point with the protections of our policies and way of life.


----------



## Danny

Just a question: does any other country not have a military?


----------



## Sh0rtbUs

umm...why would someone attack Canada? Are you aware of the amount of natural resources Canada owns? Also, we have quite alot of land kicking around...and Im sure alot of over populated countries wouldnt mind having some of it. Keep in mind, the Canadian Army is not just a government establishment utilized to invade other countries and  protect our own, we aid countries all over the world, lend support...and make the world a more stable place as often as possible. Another way the Canadian Army is useful, is like you pointed out already, we do crisis relief. Lending a MAJOR hand to the Emergency teams around the country.

I agree with Jonsey, we should continue to hold our own, and stop waiting for the united States to be our international bodyguard. We have alot to preserve and protect.


----------



## Roger

A good example was the war in Iraq; the Canadian government did not have the troops to send to Iraq. I do not think that was the only reason we did not go, there were many and most Canadians did not support it. But maybe if we had a larger Army we might have gone, or if we did have the Army our government might have sent us. Now the USA is allowing us to bid on lucrative contracts, but is the reason is because of what we did and are doing in Afghanistan?

We are part of the G8, would it be fair to lets say Germany or Great Britain who would for fun have no Armed forces and when ever there was a problem like Yugoslavia, Haiti or Somalia. Canada would always send troops and they did not, would we allow them to be involved in the process of world peace. The most widely known neutral country in the world is Switzerland and per capita â Å“IE mainly reservistsâ ? they have one of the largest Army‘s in Europe and yet they never send troops anywhere except the Vatican. Should they have a right to be part of the process in peace anywhere?

Then there is the home argument, I do not know how many times I was sent out to find a lost hiker or hunter in cold fall or winter conditions. Walking in the woods all night searching and callin g out names, searching in grids like a RECCE, who can you send on the ground at â â€œ35 that has the experience and clothing of that weather outside and can walk and search large area's. The Oka crisis, the natives outgunned the Police force and had to call in the Army, Oka was just in the news again. The Ice storm, the snow storm in Toronto.

How many of you remember the US navy ship that went through our territory in the 80's and the USA said that it was not Canadian territory and the north belonged to the world. At the time we had an Army large enough that we could send troops, if it was today what would we do?


----------



## Michael OLeary

Why do we have police forces? Most of what we see them do can be done by meter maids, crosswalk attendents and Commissionares.

First and foremost, an army is a political tool of a government. It indicates that a government has the means to exert force, or demonstrate the threat of force, when political measures fail. In an international spectrum, possessing armed forces and the capability to project force (however slight) across the globe demonstrates a capability to be a player on the world stage; to have an active part in international decision-making that affects our way of live.

It may be that the most visible manner in which Canada exercises its ‘civic‘ responsibilities in the world community is partaking in peace-keeping; but that cannot be done credibly by an alternative organization. Peacekeeping a la late Op SNOWGOOSE (Cyprus) may have been mostly a mundane routine; but early missions in the Balkans were nothing like that and were no place for folks in reflective vests waving "stop" signs.

Domestically, the Canadian Forces was the best, if not the only organization that had the personnel, equipped with basic transportation and communication resources, having an in-place command and control structure and the corporate responsibility to respond. I cannot envision what we would maintain on a similar scale SOLELY for response to national emergencies with 10-15,000 personnel. Similarly on domestic issues, it is the military trainintg and support system that maintains much of our national search and rescue assets, maintains our nuclear, biological and chemical terrorism emergency response, that provided divers for the Swiss Air disaster and that provides the personnel and training for our counter-terrorist force (which the RCMP gave to the military after declaring they could not sustain it).

At what point do you consider our need for an armed forces ceased? After the War of 1812, the last direct assault by organized armed units on our territory? After 1864, when the affiliated threat of Union invasion as a spin-off of Confederate trade with Britain ceased? After the Fenian raids? After 1902, following our participation by wide public acclaim in the Empire‘s little war in South Africa? After 1918, when we returned from the First World War; where 61,000 of 626,000 Canadian soldiers died defending OUR ideals of peace and democracy? After 1945, when we returned from the Second World War, with one of the largest fleets in the worls; after 42,000 deaths from 1.1 million servicemen. Or maybe it faded when we withdrew our Brigade from Europe, did that indicate in your mind that we no longer had any responsibility to the nations with which we share defensive alliances? Or is it during the peacekeeping era; which has seen Canadian participating all over the world at a cost of over 120 dead to date, building a world-class reputation for professionalism and respect for our nation.

What does having an Army materially give to you, a teenage boy from the Prairies - probably nothing.

Ask me again after you gain an understanding of your own responsibilities as a citizen, both of Canada and within the world. Travel the country and the world, see what your military does at home and abroad. Understand that the nature of our democratic system relies heavily on the sacrifices of the soldiers from your father‘s, your grandfather‘s and your great-grandfather‘s generations. We may have a similar governmental system today if we‘d never gone overseas to fight, but of what value would that be if the majority of the world existed in dictatorships?

We exist as a sovereign nation because our nation has always maintained a will to step up in times of crisis and defend the mores of our nation. I, for one, think the Canadian citizenry gets that pretty cheaply for what they afford the services and I do not think saving those few billion dollars annually and becoming a ward of the US is worth the trade.

Don‘t ask what a the Army does for you; try asking what it does for your nation.

Mike


----------



## Slim

> Originally posted by Beatty1:
> [qb]
> But on the crisis part, couldn‘t there be a different organization to do this?[/qb]


In my opinion there probably wouldn‘t be a better organization to deal with disaster relief than the soldier. Especially ours.

Soldiers, by their very nature, are taught to be creative in the way they deal with any given situation and will often prevent situations from arising by being very proactive.

Most disaster relief situations call for a large group of people who are disciplined, can think on their feet, can work as a team and can adapt to a constantly changing situation. As well as the ability to protect people and their belongings ( anti-looting). Then there is the ability to live in less than ideal conditions.

The military also has the kit and the knowledge to effectively use it to full advantage while conducting relief ops.

You would be hard pressed to find a more competent, capable group to taske care of disasters than the Canadian Forces.

Don‘t let anyone ever tell you otherwise.

Slim


----------



## Sh0rtbUs

oooh well said


----------



## Yes Man

Maybe this is something no one here has thought of cause after all Canada is a very liberal tree hugging kind of nation... but a good reason to have an army is so you can attack.


----------



## Slim

> Originally posted by Yes Man:
> [qb] Maybe this is something no one here has thought of cause after all Canada is a very liberal tree hugging kind of nation... but a good reason to have an army is so you can attack. [/qb]


You‘re supposed to have three to one odds ( minimum) to attack anyone else.

Not that I disagree with you in the abstract but who were you thinking of attacking excactly?

Slim


----------



## Yes Man

Luxemburg...


----------



## Padraig OCinnead

Hey Beatty1, has your house ever burned down?


----------



## Roger

> Originally posted by Yes Man:
> [qb] Maybe this is something no one here has thought of cause after all Canada is a very liberal tree hugging kind of nation... but a good reason to have an army is so you can attack. [/qb]


They are not only taught to attack, but also to defend.......


----------



## kaspacanada

> Originally posted by Trap:
> How many of you remember the US navy ship that went through our territory in the 80's and the USA said that it was not Canadian territory and the north belonged to the world. At the time we had an Army large enough that we could send troops, if it was today what would we do? [/QB]


Actually, we still claim that territory, and the US still sends its ships through there.  The point of contention is that we let them use it, and when they have ships going through, we send planes to do a routine flyby so that it cannot become an ‘international custom‘ and be entrenched into international law.  As long as we do that, then no country can ever say that it was customary as an international waterway because we have NEVER accepted that.


----------



## kaspacanada

I kind of like the Swiss model of a military.  Not that I really want that model, but it could be a feasible option at least as far as the army is concerned.  (I better be careful before I put myself out of work)  It is conceivable that we could have one large militia, (reserves) for all home problems, home defence, and primarily volunteers for peacekeeping (or mabey a draft out of the reserves if we could ever get some sort of job guarantees enacted).  The reserves would then need a mandatory training schedule over, mabey for example, 3 months within every 2 years.  (again, job security would be an issue).  Any other ideas on that?

I do beleive we need a military for any possibility, including potential future invasion from the south.  I don‘t think the US would hesitate to get its hands on our water resources if they ran out and people there were suffering.  But that is totally beside the point.  On the other hand, I can‘t see any other nation that would ever invade Canada at the moment, not even the US right now.  Face it, if they wanted to, they could do it.  But the one thing that friendly relations with Canada does do for them is provides them with a ‘showcase‘ to boast about not being a bully or hegemonic power..and in some cases, it works for them.

Do you really think that if we were attacked on Sept. 11th, or that if an attack like that occurred that we would suddenly take a bunch of money from health care and education and redirect it to the military to invade someone else????  Crap, with our recruiting issues, we‘d have to institute a bl**dy draft in order to get our manpower up and then the quality of our troops would likely go down too.


----------



## ArmyAl

Did your house burn down last night?
No you say, (I hope!)
Well, then you don‘t need a fire department, or do you?


----------



## Padraig OCinnead

That is what I was getting at ArmyAl. You never need them till it‘s all going up in flames. And you never need a military till the enemy is at the gate. We just sit around and wait. And wait. And wait till something crazy happens.


----------



## jonsey

"And you never need a military till the enemy is at the gate."


But, who keeps the enemy away from the gate?


----------



## Padraig OCinnead

Once "Ol‘ Dirty Red Ivan" puts his nose across it I‘ll whack him on it with a rolled up newspaper!

Or I‘ll issue fire orders to my section!


----------



## RCD

Never fear our Liberal lawyers will defend us. 
Now only if they can get the rest of the world to register their firearms


----------



## Gunner

> Never fear our Liberal lawyers will defend us.


Don‘t be ridiculous.  The Liberal lawyers will send out the RCMP in their red serge to defend Canada.


----------



## Gunner

> Never fear our Liberal lawyers will defend us.


Don‘t be ridiculous.  The Liberal lawyers will send out the RCMP in their red serge to defend Canada.


----------



## Caz

Interesting thread!

As for ‘another organization‘ able to assist in natural disasters... if you look at the US model, they have the National Guard - something we don‘t have.  We just have one CF, that goes anywhere, anytime.

Would the US, or another nation, protect us in the event of an attack on Canadian soil?  Probably - but would they be serving the interests in Canadians in doing so?

One of the most important reasons that a nation has a military force is because that force is the ultimate instrument of government policy.  Think of how much foreign and domestic policy gets demonstrated via our armed forces:  humanitarian efforts, our role as peacekeepers, helping Canadians in need, search and rescue of anyone in a pickle...

As well, let‘s look at our responsibility to the rest of the world.  Take the Navy for example, working seamlessly with US and UK carrier groups.  If we want to be treated like a first-world, NATO country, then we have the responsibilitiy to contribute to that.

A lot of Canadians question our sovreignty, and the impression that some have of Canada just being the 51st state.  I don‘t think not having a military would help that attitude.

My thoughts...

-R


----------



## Michael OLeary

I don‘t think the concept of "Army" in the orginal question was suffiently defined to consider a standing regular army and a national guard (as in the US model) two distinct organizations. I would suspect the original poster wouldn‘t understand the differences in the context of his question. Given the posing of the original question, I suspect he meant it to include any uniformed armed soldiery.

Mike

(Edited to correct the grammar.)


----------



## Franko

I have some questions for you Beaty1....

What were you doing when the world stood still?

What were you doing after the planes slammed into the WTC, the Pentagon into the ground that night?

I know what I was doing....

Gearing up my Coyote...getting ready to draw ammo...sleeping NEXT to my Coyote and waiting for orders with the rest of my squadron....

My buddies in the tank squadron sleeping next to their tanks doing the same....

What were you doing when the ice storm hit?...

I was going door to door in -30 weather making sure people were OK and rescueing others that weren‘t....

What did you do when the (unfortunate)OKA crisis happened?

I was patroling in a Cougar around civilian homes and going out on riot control to protect lives and homes...

What did you do when the Red River flood hit?...

My buddies were stacking sand bags for people they didn‘t know to save their homes and property...

What did you do when the fires of BC happened?...

My buddies in Edmonton fought them....

and now I‘m here, in Bosnia, with 1200 other troops, to keep the peace between once waring factions. 

Lots of my friends are in Afganistan( go Recce Sqn RCD!), going after the same guys that made the world stand still.

You‘re going to be joining soon....

and you have the parts to ask a question like that?

Would you ask the same question to a Great War, WW2 or Korean War vet‘s face?

You asked if there is a reason to still have an army?

‘nuff said.

something to think about   

Regards


----------



## Korus

Maybe it‘s just me, but I don‘t think Beatty1 is being a tree hugging anti-military hippie, saying that we _don‘t_ need an army, just is looking for _all_ the reasons why we _do_ need one..

BTW, Franko, good post.


----------



## Franko

I never said she was. Just trying to get some reasons across. 

I hope I did.

Did I Beaty1?


Regards


----------



## Enzo

Danny - Try Costa Rica.


----------



## Beatty1

Yes you did franko, thanks.
I really like the thread that was made!
And in doing so I have realised what the Canadian Army is: A government tool used to protect our borders, and our way of life.  In doing so we have helped out the world we live in, and I think that this isn't so much of an aside, as the help our soldiers give overseas helps protect the world and in doing so protects ourselves.  In saying that however, I wonder if maybe were helping out to out much? (the recent news of there only being 500 troops left in Canada.)

This brings up the question asking if our army is to small?  Do we need more money, like the â Å“Doom or Gloomâ ? report from Queen's University states? Or should we be more worried about not having enough men? As many of the Canada's soldiers are nearing retirement, and not enough recruits to fulfill they're place?

Recently David Pratt has stated that the current soldiers will be taking a brake (to the sorrows to those who are looking for more pay).  Is this a good thing? It means more people to teach new recruits. Its saving money, which means more toys for the boys. Is this maybe a step towards a new well-organized DND? Or, is this just a plot to ease fears that maybe the Canadian military is slowly going away? (Because the prime minister has no one to take lead from *cough* Bush *cough* because this certain someone has an election to worry about...but I digress) 

That's a lot of questions, but what is comes down to is; does Canada need a bigger military?(it seams most of why Canada needs a military in the first place is being fulfilled) if we do need a bigger military HOW?


----------



## jonsey

Yes, the Canadian Military has too few personell. One reason is that the more personell there are, the greater the costs (everyone wants to get paid, everyone needs equipment, everyone needs to be trained properly). So, it‘s not just a matter of needing more money or needing more people, we need both. 

Does Canada need a bigger military? Eventually, I would like to see Canada‘s Military grow, but first, I would like to see that the current Military get the proper funding it needs to make sure every soldier has everything they need.


----------



## Veteran`s son

Thank you for your recent post, Franko!   
Is that a Springbok on your cap badge?


----------



## Franko

Your welcome.

Second question....yep   

Why do you ask?

Cheers


----------



## Ex-Dragoon

Franko were you RCD back in 90-94 when I was in the Regiment?


----------



## Veteran`s son

Franko:

I have heard my Dad mention the Springbok on the Dragoon‘s hat badge but wasn‘t sure if I spelled it correctly.
There is also a regiment called the British Columbia Dragoons, right?
Are the two hat badges similar?
Also, how long have the RCD worn the current cap badge?

Again, any replies would be appreciated!


----------



## Franko

Ex Dragoon....no. I was working with Cforce and the Armour School(on B class) mostly when I was in the Reserves back then. Did my Leo D&M in 93 with them too. Didn‘t see my home unit very much..always on callout/course with the regs.

Veteran‘s Son...There is a res. regiment that goes by that name. They‘re armour. 

No..the badges are quite different.

The current badge,which was approved by Queen Victoria, has been in use for 1912.


Any other questions....fire away!

Cheers


----------



## portcullisguy

I have no problem with people asking for reasons why Canada has an army.

The day we stop asking questions is the day we have given up our rights and freedoms, and all start calling ourselves "Comrade Bloggins" and goosestepping around the town.

And it is precisely because of that threat (the loss of freedom and our way of life) that an army exists, here in Canada, and the rest of the Commonwealth.

Our army is just one tool in the toolbox.  Some jobs require other tools, like education, health care and other social services.  But sometimes, when those tools don‘t work, we need to use other tools, like our police, military, justice system, etc.  We prefer to use the first set of tools, because they can help avoid bigger problems.  But we keep the other tools in good condition just in case.

It is because the "other" tools exist that allows us to rely mainly on the first set of tools, like our hospitals and shelters, schools, etc.  If the army and police and courts don‘t work at all, there is no way our schools and medical services have a hope in ****.


----------



## Raincoast

> Originally posted by Beatty1:
> [qb] Hello everyone, I would like to know why a country such as Canada needs an army.  I'm certain that one of the most obvious point, is to protect ourselves. And yes I know this seams like a juvenile question, but I'm hoping to see some in depth, and interesting comments. [/qb]


I‘m a Canadian, former reservist, now living in the States. Let me let you in on a little secret. 90% of Americans don‘t know the first thing about Canada and would only be only supportive of it to the extent that it‘s useful to the US. 

Having something of an armed forces allows Canada to engage in things outside the control of the US - say UN peacekeeping in places taht are of no interest to the states like most of Africa. Being good at a few things also makes the Canadian military appealling to certain US missions, which gives Canada some bargaining leverage. 

I don‘t think Canada needs a huge army but a small, good, professional one gives Canada a greater degree of autonomy. And for goodness sakes, try to get out of bed with the American military in so many situations if you can. Trust me, you don‘t want to know how simplistically some Americans view the ‘War on Terror‘ and how little they care about what happens to others.


----------



## yot

> Originally posted by ArmyAl:
> [qb] Did your house burn down last night?
> No you say, (I hope!)
> Well, then you don‘t need a fire department, or do you?
> [/qb]


totally agree. CF can protect Canada, not only RCMP. You don‘t know that what is going to happen in the future. There is no problem to have an army. 1. defend 2. help to decrease the unemployment. However, everyone may think to spend money on CF, why don‘t spend money on Medical and education?! They feel that medical care and education are most important for themself.


----------



## Spr.Earl

> Originally posted by Raincoast:
> [qb]
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Originally posted by Beatty1:
> [qb] Hello everyone, I would like to know why a country such as Canada needs an army.  I'm certain that one of the most obvious point, is to protect ourselves. And yes I know this seams like a juvenile question, but I'm hoping to see some in depth, and interesting comments. [/qb]
> 
> 
> 
> I‘m a Canadian, former reservist, now living in the States. Let me let you in on a little secret. 90% of Americans don‘t know the first thing about Canada and would only be only supportive of it to the extent that it‘s useful to the US.
> 
> Having something of an armed forces allows Canada to engage in things outside the control of the US - say UN peacekeeping in places taht are of no interest to the states like most of Africa. Being good at a few things also makes the Canadian military appealling to certain US missions, which gives Canada some bargaining leverage.
> 
> I don‘t think Canada needs a huge army but a small, good, professional one gives Canada a greater degree of autonomy. And for goodness sakes, try to get out of bed with the American military in so many situations if you can. Trust me, you don‘t want to know how simplistically some Americans view the ‘War on Terror‘ and how little they care about what happens to others. [/qb]
Click to expand...

Rain Coast you inform your local‘s that we also supply over 30% of thier energy every day!
I‘d love to shut the tap off just to see what would happen to the GREAT U.S. of A.

I for one am getting tired of being bullied!


----------



## Padraig OCinnead

Let the sleeping dog lie.


----------



## karpovage

Michael OLeary hit it right on the head. Well said, sir. Well said. My opinion is a standing army is needed to defend its citizens and way of life from unimaginable threats. Domestic and International. Period. If you value your country, value the sacrifices those before you have made in shaping your country then you will raise an army to defend those values because if you do not you will be taken advantage of from other nations seeking their agenda. Simply look at history for the answer. Man will find some way to kill another man for whatever reason. Religion, resources, power or just because you speak a different language or look different. Are you willing to be the nation that just sits back and smiles or forgives or offers hugs for love when your own citizens are slaughtered like pigs simply because they worship a different god than you do? An army and a strong one at that is needed to counter this ever-existing threat.


----------



## Franko

Well said


----------



## slans

Some seriously good Speakers in this forum..Michael OLeary... well said!


----------



## Jeff Boomhouwer

Every country in the world has some sort of military organization on it‘s soil. Whether it‘s their own is the real question. A military is meant to defend the country‘s freedoms and preserve it‘s way of life. The military is in place so civies can sleep at night in their beds and have the right to question whether Canada needs defence. kinda ironic eh?


----------



## Jarnhamar

I think some people miss a main point here. Yes traditionally an army is there to defend your country but were living in an age where you can‘t just close up your borders and mind your own buisness. You need an army to defend your countries interests abroad AND to defend our allies.  Canada needs a military so we can contribute to world peace. obviously no one is going to attack canada or the states en masse. (well most likely not) But if we sit by and let our allied countries get taken over by hostile governments were not going to have anyone to trade (import/export) with and our economy will suffer thus lowering our quality of life.
You‘d see how quickly an anti war activist changes their song if they have to live in a building with no running water, no electricity and no gas for their smashed to **** vehicles.


----------



## GerryCan

This argument shouldn‘t even be happening, it has to be one of the stupidest posts I have ever seen. Beatty, you‘re an idiot. Ignorant thinking such as yours is the same kind that got our army in the situation it is in today.


----------



## Franko

OK Gerry Can....she‘s posted a legit question and you‘re calling her "ignorant". So enlighten her and the rest of us of how her thinking has ruined the CF.   

Regards


----------



## nex

I think GerryCan what you need to realize is that people just don‘t "get it" about the military until they‘ve gotten through their BMQ and seen what it‘s all about.  Even then new people don‘t truely know but they get a good understanding of it.  
  I think there‘s been some incredible posts that have made ME proud to be Canadian and I thought I was already as proud as I could get.  When it comes down to it everyone in the forces takes care of the guy standing in the trench, or seat or on the deck with him and that‘s a perspective that no one really will feel or understand until they are part of it.  

   Maybe some of these posts have enlightened her and perhaps some of them should be published to let OTHER CIVILIANS see that we are more than just a group of people taking money away from health care or CPP.

As a whole though civilians ARE ignorant of what the military does and in some ways that means that democracy works because the only countries that really know and see their militaries usually have leaders with posters hanging from all the buildings and are in power for life (or until the next guy gets a knife in first).  

Ultimately lashing out at a naive question after she‘s acknowledged the thoughtfulness of the posts made afterwards is kinda just being mean. Besides if anything perhaps she‘ll be one more person who sides with budget increases and goes to Rememberence day parades .. and she‘ll tell friends and hopefully with time everyone will see the light but don‘t bash those that want information and to see what we do, or want to do.


----------



## Ex-Dragoon

I am hoping Gerrycan‘s attack though has not turned Beatty against the military like it would most people.


----------



## Franko

dominas...good point in your last paragraph. 

Beatty1...don‘t worry about Gerrycan. He‘s just venting. Although I can‘t understand why.
He‘s a newbie...FNG...three years in and you‘re making statements like that? Come on!

Thankfully we all know that crunchies often speak BEFORE they think   

Regards


----------



## Slacker

Why do we need an Army?

Well first off who is going to kick the teeth out of all those hippie protesters. Annoying unwashed bums.....

Seriously though, if you don‘t have a Military doing it‘s part in overseas missions then you get the Boot from Nato. There are a lot of other countries that have a Military and they haven‘t been attacked in 100s of years. If ever. UN or Nato peackeeping missions are actually important and Canada seems to get the most respect and results. You going over there to sort that out for us? No, we give up half a year of our lives and go away from our families to do it.

I was at the Winnipeg flood and I don‘t think any of the home owners we saved ever asked us why we have a military. We provide a civil aid like that all the time. 

Maybe you remeber the Ice storm that put millions of people in the dark, without heat for quite a while. No offence but you did nothing for anyone then. We did.


----------



## Franko

Ummm...Slacker...did you read the entire thread?

BTW..good point on NATO.

Regards


----------



## Slacker

Nope just the title


----------



## nex

Message board ettiquette dude..     Lurking and reading is always good, esp when there‘s 3 pages of posts already there.


----------



## Beatty1

First of all he, not she.

But I‘ve been away from this thread for a while (Finals)
And no Gerrycan didn‘t deture me from the military.  And to debate his comment, "Ignorant thinking such as yours is the same kind that got our army in the situation it is in today."
I beleive that it is because these type of questions were being asked(and more importantly answered to civilians) that the CF is in the situation of needing more money.


----------



## Slim

> Originally posted by GerryCan:
> [qb] This argument shouldn‘t even be happening, it has to be one of the stupidest posts I have ever seen. Beatty, you‘re an idiot. Ignorant thinking such as yours is the same kind that got our army in the situation it is in today. [/qb]


Dude
    I think you should relax and look at the whole thread. The guy is just asking. It‘s not as if he‘s slagging anyone or anything, he just wants to know why, thats all. 

Why don‘t you do yourself a favour and answer the question, instead of calling him names.

Slim


----------



## Franko

Slim...he‘s a crunchie with 3 years in. What did you expect?   

Regards


----------



## Recce41

Ex Dragoon
 I thinks the only old Dragoons here are Gerry, Yourself and me. 
 As for having a military, a country without one is no real country. 
Gerryman
  Grow up get alil time in. Then beek off.


----------



## GerryCan

> Originally posted by Franko:
> [qb] dominas...good point in your last paragraph.
> 
> Beatty1...don‘t worry about Gerrycan. He‘s just venting. Although I can‘t understand why.
> He‘s a newbie...FNG...three years in and you‘re making statements like that? Come on!
> 
> Thankfully we all know that crunchies often speak BEFORE they think
> 
> Regards [/qb]


Ok Franko, why not explain to me exactly how long in the military you need to be able to make such ‘statements‘. Now don‘t get me wrong, I would never try to disgrace someone which such superiority as yourself, escpecially someone referring to Infanteers as crunchies, yet doesn‘t have a tank to back it up with. ****, we‘ve got more firepower than you do, so maybe there‘s a start in how the army is screwed up right now?? But don‘t mind this ‘crunchie‘ just speaking before thinking...  :cam:


----------



## Franko

Now it‘s come down to this?    

Grow up and realize I was being SARCASTIC...
Note the HUGE grin after my statement.

As for the infantry having more fire power than the Armour Corps      We still have the same amout of tanks as before, currently so to speak. 

The "crunchie" statement was blatantly sarcastic in response to your attack of Beatty1‘s question, as was FNG...newbie..etc. 

The only thing in your last statement was"****, we‘ve got more firepower than you do, so maybe there‘s a start in how the army is screwed up right now??" that ACTUALLY made any sense. Not having tanks in the future leaves our guys vulnerable during intimate ops such as clearing a position after an attack. Intimate call signs would be fully exposed, as would the troops following behind for cover(you guys). This is such a bad idea that more than likely our concept of ops would likely change, causing another bunfight in the higher echelons of DND.

As for "Ok Franko, why not explain to me exactly how long in the military you need to be able to make such ‘statements‘."

Are you for real? 

You‘re sitting in Drvar right now, playing PING PONG, and doing nothing(acording to your write up), complaining that Beatty1 had no right to comment on the state of the military. When in fact you‘re statement reflects what the military has become. 

If the military used their pers more responsibly and employed them in areas where they were needed then the state of the military would be better off, but instead, the powers to be have you playing ping pong and eating your tour away. So, to that end, by your own admittance your existance in Bosnia is no longer required....

You as a private have every right to comment on military issues that have been in effect since you joined(3 years ago). 

Perhaps we should go back to the old days where soldier didn‘t have the right to comment on Gov‘t policies but just did their job as laid down by their commanders. Old tankers like myself wish and pray for the old days to come back so that we once again can be proud of our military heritege, where we would SEEK AND ACCEPT RESPONIBILITY. 

‘Nuff said

Regards


----------



## Jarnhamar

*yet doesn‘t have a tank to back it up with. ****, we‘ve got more firepower than you do*

Good to see the old pissing contest is alive and well.  It‘s an embarassment to CANADA that our government is putting such a low priority on MBTs.

As an crunchie (never heard that one before?) myself, i‘ll never turn down a free ride from a zipper head


----------



## Franko

Ghost778...you‘re correct, it‘s a crying shame.

As for a ride...your always welcomed    

Regards

Note...I‘m waiting for a retort of"OH YEAH?!" from Gerrycan


----------



## Jarnhamar

Franko careful what you promise my friend I‘m in VK right now and i just turned over 4 of my Iltis with the remainder of my vehicles going in a few days.
Mind you, having to drive around a Nissan diesel 4x4 here and there makes up for it kinda   

Kinda makes me sad the lack of brotherhood thats in the forces. People complaining that others are driving too fast on base, guys turning vehicles or equipment over dirty, just basically people trying to screw with one another. I‘d like to attribute a lot of it to being bored with nothing productive to do.


----------



## Franko

Makes you yearn for the old days, doesn‘t it?

As for the vehicles...getting rid of them is a real pain...UUNNGGHGH!

I can‘t say I‘m bored though. I keep myself plenty buisy with that and other things I can‘t get into over these means, hope you‘ll understand.

Regards


----------



## Mike Bobbitt

It‘s unfortunate it had to come to this, but Slacker has been banned. Hopefully we can get the threads he has derailed back on track, and I apologize for the disturbance.

Score one for the Morons.


----------



## Franko

Just to get the topic back to where it ended. Any comments?


----------



## Ex-Dragoon

May I take this argument/discussion/topic further? Interservice rivalries aside but do we need an air force and navy as well? Do you guys/gals feel (realistically) that we don‘t need this elements?


----------



## Padraig OCinnead

I believe without the other two elements an army would have a rough go at it. Idealistically, I think all services should have one point. To support the infantry. Just like a real army where everyone‘s job leads to supporting the pointy end. My job is to provide communications. Why? So the 031 guys can get their job done with a little less trouble. Air Force? Drive the 031 to battle, or provide fire support and bring their supplies. Navy? They can ferry the heavy kit over until we smarten up and trade the subs and CF-18s for a half dozen heavy lift aircraft.

So to answer Ex-Dragoon‘s question I would say yes we do need them.

Unfortunatly many non-combat arms people don‘t share this belief and it colours their perseption on what is needed.


----------



## Ex-Dragoon

Personally I don‘t think one service should get the lionshare of the budget...we all have needs and they should all be realistically prioritized.


----------



## Franko

True..but without an effective army, why bother with the rest? We are slowly getting away from war fighting, especially with the Styker MGS.

Thoughts or comments?

Regards


----------



## GForce

I dont think this is even an arguement we have enough resources in central/western Canada to remove any country off the map just because "we‘ve banned nuclear weapons" doesn‘t mean much just like how gas in war even by the germans and they resorted to it, just like the United states droping a second nuke on Japan very un-needed. I‘m implying anything about world domination im just saying most countries can create nuclear weapons extremely quick or introduce conscription again? Canada has never had a HUGE army when its not in war times, when it gets into a war they have one of the fastest growing militaries because of all the young lads wanting to make a name for themselves and protect there country.. I dont think USA should be protecting anyone providing they cant even protect themselves. Sorry for the typo‘s this one was fairly quick. I‘m not taking sides just food for thought.


----------



## jeff001

A few things to consider about do we need an army, is that Canada is not a super power we don‘t need huge military to exercise influence, control or show power around the globe, by"aggressivley attacking other nations",we can do this through NATO(or God help us)UN missions.
Would Canadians not want a formed, disiplined, trained body of professional soldiers in Defence of the Nation.Without someone selling our country out so that the states can protect us.Without  having a formed Armed Forces who represent the Governments Authority. My main point is to think about the Oklahoma City bombing. Done by a militia group without regulation. Just something else to consider.


----------



## kaspacanada

> Originally posted by TECH.:
> [qb] My main point is to think about the Oklahoma City bombing. Done by a militia group without regulation. Just something else to consider. [/qb]


Tech,

As a side note on this, it might be premature to jump to the conclusion that it was done ‘by a militia group.‘  Not that I am a fan of the structure in the U.S. system at times and the deregulation you mention re: weapons and militia‘s.  Mabey they came off a little strange in ‘Bowling for Columbine‘, but many American‘s share that fear of, or at least scepticism of government.  (Note that I also use the word some and not ‘all‘)  Just because McVeigh and the Nicols brothers had attended militia meetings doesn‘t mean that they supported what those three (two convicted) did in Oklahoma.  At least that is the claim of Moore, that they attended militia meetings.   Does anyone know if they were members or have heard anything to the contrary?  Even so, does anyone know anything about the militia supporting it (that is the Oklahoma bombing)?  Unless someone comes up with something, I would think it unfair to assume this.


----------



## Jarnhamar

"Mabey they came off a little strange in ‘Bowling for Columbine"

They are a little weird as to hitler was a little evil.


----------



## Gunnar

Shall I invoke Godwin‘s Law now?  Can we end this thread?

Bowling for Columbine is a propaganda movie.  When the director is presented with proof of his evasions, equivocations, and selective edits, he just shrugs his shoulders and claims people are out to get him.


----------



## Ex-Dragoon

Beatty do you feel all your questions have been answered?


----------

