- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 410
he was quoting "big bad john". and I think he missed the /sarcasm tag. seems like everyone's in agreement though 
- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 110
The whole point about cross-oceanic invasion has very little to do with the forces involved.
While the Chinese could the land troops, surprise means very little if you don't accomplish the objectives. A Chinese landing in Vancouver means nothing unless they destroy the forces that would have opposed such a landing.
In turn, the Chinese's lack of real aircraft carriers means our F/A 18s get to work their ships over with impunity. So even if they do land troops, the troops will land without air support and eventually our air force and naval units should be able to interdict incoming flights and supply ships. Whatever troops that landed will eventually be fighting with clubs called AK-47s because they will run out of bullets because their supplies stopped coming.
This scenario is kind of stupid for anyone with a basic knowledge of geography, knows that China is right next door to Siberia, and Mongolia. Lots of big empty. If the Chinese want to stretch themselves, Australia is closer than Canada.
As for past oceanic invasions, the Pacific, even the Torch Landing, really weren't oceanic invasions. For the pacific the US were doing Corp to Army size operations taking cutoff islands with overwhelming sea and air support. Additionally it was not as if they US was operating straight out of Los Angeles. The were operating from Hawaii, Australia, and finally the islands they took.
Why was the US do the island hoping approach? Why not go straight to Japan? Because they needed the islands for the logistics, for the air bases, and for the time needed to destroy Japan's ability to wage war.
Another example is the Torch Operation. While some units shipped directly from the States to North Africa, they still had bases in theatre, and the opposition was not as heavy or spirited as it could have been if say German troops were resisting at the beaches.
A better example of an cross-oceanic invasion is the Falklands War. The British were literally at the end of their logistic capabilities to mount the operation. In turn, as one of those counter-factual musings, if the Argentinians had more reliable munitions, the British endeavour would have failed. 6 ships sunk, 12 damaged by air delivered munitions. Many of those 12 damaged ships were damaged by munitions that failed to explode. This all happened because the British never gained air superiority in theatre.
The Falklands example is what people should be looking at for how a cross-oceanic invasion would go today.
The delivery of Air Mobile forces is kind of a non-starter. Just because a country can get troops somewhere means nothing, unless they can support them while the troops are there. As Arnhem demonstrated, airborne troops are mush if they don't get support when confronting mechanized forces of any kind. The way to destroy such forces is the logistics. If, for example, the Russians landed three{I picked this number off the top of my head} divisions of troops on Whitehorse. The Russians weakest link is supplying their troops. For the Berlin air lift, bulldozers were on stand by at the air fields because any planes that crash landed, were to be immediately removed otherwise the crashed planes would screw up the landing schedule. It wouldn't be too hard for our F/A 18 to knock down a handful of cargo plane, once they go their act together. Besides the Russians don't have the airlift necessary to undertake such an endeavour, much less supply them.
As a point the Russians have no boundary disputes with us. Those were picked up by the Americans when they bought Alaska. The US also says the Northwest Passage is an international water way, not Denmark. Denmark disputes sovereignty over Han Island. Looking at what you wrote, the Russians don't recognize our sovereignty over the Northwest Passage, or do they not recognize Nunavut and the North West Territory? I'm not sure what "it" is.
48Highlander said:
While the Chinese could the land troops, surprise means very little if you don't accomplish the objectives. A Chinese landing in Vancouver means nothing unless they destroy the forces that would have opposed such a landing.
In turn, the Chinese's lack of real aircraft carriers means our F/A 18s get to work their ships over with impunity. So even if they do land troops, the troops will land without air support and eventually our air force and naval units should be able to interdict incoming flights and supply ships. Whatever troops that landed will eventually be fighting with clubs called AK-47s because they will run out of bullets because their supplies stopped coming.
This scenario is kind of stupid for anyone with a basic knowledge of geography, knows that China is right next door to Siberia, and Mongolia. Lots of big empty. If the Chinese want to stretch themselves, Australia is closer than Canada.
mainerjohnthomas said:
As for past oceanic invasions, the Pacific, even the Torch Landing, really weren't oceanic invasions. For the pacific the US were doing Corp to Army size operations taking cutoff islands with overwhelming sea and air support. Additionally it was not as if they US was operating straight out of Los Angeles. The were operating from Hawaii, Australia, and finally the islands they took.
Why was the US do the island hoping approach? Why not go straight to Japan? Because they needed the islands for the logistics, for the air bases, and for the time needed to destroy Japan's ability to wage war.
Another example is the Torch Operation. While some units shipped directly from the States to North Africa, they still had bases in theatre, and the opposition was not as heavy or spirited as it could have been if say German troops were resisting at the beaches.
A better example of an cross-oceanic invasion is the Falklands War. The British were literally at the end of their logistic capabilities to mount the operation. In turn, as one of those counter-factual musings, if the Argentinians had more reliable munitions, the British endeavour would have failed. 6 ships sunk, 12 damaged by air delivered munitions. Many of those 12 damaged ships were damaged by munitions that failed to explode. This all happened because the British never gained air superiority in theatre.
The Falklands example is what people should be looking at for how a cross-oceanic invasion would go today.
The delivery of Air Mobile forces is kind of a non-starter. Just because a country can get troops somewhere means nothing, unless they can support them while the troops are there. As Arnhem demonstrated, airborne troops are mush if they don't get support when confronting mechanized forces of any kind. The way to destroy such forces is the logistics. If, for example, the Russians landed three{I picked this number off the top of my head} divisions of troops on Whitehorse. The Russians weakest link is supplying their troops. For the Berlin air lift, bulldozers were on stand by at the air fields because any planes that crash landed, were to be immediately removed otherwise the crashed planes would screw up the landing schedule. It wouldn't be too hard for our F/A 18 to knock down a handful of cargo plane, once they go their act together. Besides the Russians don't have the airlift necessary to undertake such an endeavour, much less supply them.
As a point the Russians have no boundary disputes with us. Those were picked up by the Americans when they bought Alaska. The US also says the Northwest Passage is an international water way, not Denmark. Denmark disputes sovereignty over Han Island. Looking at what you wrote, the Russians don't recognize our sovereignty over the Northwest Passage, or do they not recognize Nunavut and the North West Territory? I'm not sure what "it" is.
- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 110
This is kind of funny. To think that a nation needs an armed forces simply for defense is naive to say the least. The military, for better or worse, is used as a tool of foreign policy. The use of Canadian forces in Afghanstan is a perfect example. There was no clear threat to Canada from the Taliban however Canadian politicians decided to send Canadian troops as full combatants. This showed the world that Canada was willing to put up or shut up in "the fight against terrorism". It particularly made the Americans quite happy, obviously in the short term, as seen by their dismay at our reluctance to participate in Iraq. Using forces in such a nature can buy you a seat at the table when the big boys get together and make decisions that DO affect our nation. Matters of trade, international relations, and diplomacy can all be assisted by our willingness to take part in military actions around the world. The recent decision of Canada not to participate in the Missile Defence Shield will not doubt prove to be a case in point where the participation in military matters will affect trade. Have no doubt about it the Americans are going to be right pissed off about that. This may directly influence pending decisions on trade with respect to lumber, cattle, pharmaceuticals, etc. If you want to play ball and and have some influence in world events in a manner that is beneficial to your nation than you must be able to project at least some modicum of military might throughout the world. Unfortunately that's the language people understand.
- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 110
Pipesnake,
While I will agree, the use of your military in support of the US, UK and others, can get you a seat with the big boys when it comes to making decisions of a global nature, that will affect our our nation, I would disagree that it will affect our trade or economy. "Matters of trade, international relations, and diplomacy" will hardly be affected by our willingness or unwillingness to send troops to Iraq or other global location when requested by the US for example. I work for an American company, with offices across Canada, and we are expanding, big time. We support an American product, and since we have not sent troops to Iraq, I don't see the US company pulling out. And I think the Cattle issue has to do with Mad Cow disease and not a reluctance to send troops to Iraq. And I think that the Government, rightfully elected by the people of Canada, listened to the citizens of Canada when they said no to missile defence. I hardly doubt the NORAD defence center in Cheyen will be kicking out the Canadian Officers and staff that work there merely because we are not participating in missile defense.
As for being naive in saying that a country only needs an armed forces for defense. Try telling that to the Swedish Defense Force. First main task of the Swedish military is to defend Sweden against armed attack. The Israeli Defence Force. Their mission, "To defend the existence, territorial integrity and sovereignty of the state of Israel. To protect the inhabitants of Israel and to combat all forms of terrorism which threaten the daily life."
Irish Defence Force, Main Role "To defend the State against armed aggression". Japanese Ground self defense force, "The first objective of Japans Ground self defense force is to prevent any threat from reaching Japan and, in the event that it does, repel it and minimize any damage".
As you can see, quite a few countries have strictly self defense forces. So I do not believe it to be naive to have one for such a purpose.
While I will agree, the use of your military in support of the US, UK and others, can get you a seat with the big boys when it comes to making decisions of a global nature, that will affect our our nation, I would disagree that it will affect our trade or economy. "Matters of trade, international relations, and diplomacy" will hardly be affected by our willingness or unwillingness to send troops to Iraq or other global location when requested by the US for example. I work for an American company, with offices across Canada, and we are expanding, big time. We support an American product, and since we have not sent troops to Iraq, I don't see the US company pulling out. And I think the Cattle issue has to do with Mad Cow disease and not a reluctance to send troops to Iraq. And I think that the Government, rightfully elected by the people of Canada, listened to the citizens of Canada when they said no to missile defence. I hardly doubt the NORAD defence center in Cheyen will be kicking out the Canadian Officers and staff that work there merely because we are not participating in missile defense.
As for being naive in saying that a country only needs an armed forces for defense. Try telling that to the Swedish Defense Force. First main task of the Swedish military is to defend Sweden against armed attack. The Israeli Defence Force. Their mission, "To defend the existence, territorial integrity and sovereignty of the state of Israel. To protect the inhabitants of Israel and to combat all forms of terrorism which threaten the daily life."
Irish Defence Force, Main Role "To defend the State against armed aggression". Japanese Ground self defense force, "The first objective of Japans Ground self defense force is to prevent any threat from reaching Japan and, in the event that it does, repel it and minimize any damage".
As you can see, quite a few countries have strictly self defense forces. So I do not believe it to be naive to have one for such a purpose.
- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 110
It is not individual companies that make trade policy for the United States. Trade policy is made by both politicians and bureaucrats. If Canada does not have a good relationship with the US, due to military matters (or other issues), than this can influence American foreign policy with regards to trade. The countries you mention do not have near the economic power of Canada and therefore as much to lose as a result of their position within world economic decision making (read G8). Also none of the nations mentioned happen be the largest trading partner of the United States and vice versa. I am in no way saying we should sell out to the US however I have seen too many bad military decisions happen here for the sake of opinion polls. RIP Canadian Airborne Regiment.
- Reaction score
- 1
- Points
- 230
Canada has more natural resources, longer borders, and more powerful neighbors than any other nation on earth. We require a military whose military can secure and patrol its borders, with land elements able to repel any external threat, and respond to internal threats and natural disasters. That is the minumum for a nation that never plans on opening its mouth about international affairs. As a NATO member, and active UN supporter, we also need the abilitly to deploy expeditionary forces to honour our commitments. To those who disagree with my assesment of threat: consider the size of the Sweedish, Japanese, Swiss and other purely self defence forces (I omit Isreal for reasons of acknoledged threat in their case). In each of these nations, military spending and service by GDP and percent population is higher, and each of these countries has borders that are infinitly easier to secure then our own indefensible vastness. When Zurich hosted arms reduction treaties between the US and USSR, they were able to mobilize tens of thousands of active and reserve troops for security by reactivating recent reservists to augment active forces. Could we do the same in Toronto? Their effort put our best to shame, and they don't participate in any external missions.
- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 160
Stirling, you got good points, but i think pipe snake is right when he says that the U.S. could give us a hard time after that one. My reason to think so is: It's like racism, segregation and the like. You know..."them guys didn't support us, so they are wimps, they can't afford it politically and money wise". So every patriotic american citizien thinks that we aren't supporting them ,we don't protect our borders enough, we don't spend enough to revamp our army, and the like. Typical resentment....
Delavan
Delavan
- Reaction score
- 7,963
- Points
- 1,160
As many others are pointing out here, the main threat to Canadian sovereignty is in our "Barren Lands", not the populated areas. China doesn't have resources. We do. They need them. The Americans would prefer they didn't have them. If we exploit them and control them then we can sell them to the highest bidder and control their distribution, favouring our friends.
If we don't protect them then we leave them as a tempting target. Some folks might be inclined to exploit them and not bother to tell us if we don't bother to check. Other folks might not be too thrilled at that turn of events and determine they have vital strategic interest in securing access for themselves and denying access to others - and woe betide us if we are in the middle.
At the same time, again as noted by many others, there are a number of folks who would not mind if the Northwest Passage were deemed to be international waters. One way for that to happen is if the islands north of the waterway belong to one country while those to the south belong to another.
Yes it is expensive to extract resources from the North. We can do it much cheaper down here in the south. We have lots to go around and no need to go hunting in the badlands.
Other folks though, more desperate for resources, might think it worth the effort to risk money, materiel, manpower and political capital to secure those resources - if they saw a high enough pay-off.
If we want to maintain control of the north then we have to be able to project credible force throughout our claimed territory.
And as technology improves the size of force that we might have to dislodge from our land becomes increasingly larger.
Right now the likelilhood to me seems slim that we will have to try and dislodge much more than a light platoon or company or possibly some armed civilians. But if the WIG Ekranoplan/Pelican concept can be made to work then we might have to consider how we dislodge a battlegroup or even a brigade in the Arctic Archipelago.
If we don't protect them then we leave them as a tempting target. Some folks might be inclined to exploit them and not bother to tell us if we don't bother to check. Other folks might not be too thrilled at that turn of events and determine they have vital strategic interest in securing access for themselves and denying access to others - and woe betide us if we are in the middle.
At the same time, again as noted by many others, there are a number of folks who would not mind if the Northwest Passage were deemed to be international waters. One way for that to happen is if the islands north of the waterway belong to one country while those to the south belong to another.
Yes it is expensive to extract resources from the North. We can do it much cheaper down here in the south. We have lots to go around and no need to go hunting in the badlands.
Other folks though, more desperate for resources, might think it worth the effort to risk money, materiel, manpower and political capital to secure those resources - if they saw a high enough pay-off.
If we want to maintain control of the north then we have to be able to project credible force throughout our claimed territory.
And as technology improves the size of force that we might have to dislodge from our land becomes increasingly larger.
Right now the likelilhood to me seems slim that we will have to try and dislodge much more than a light platoon or company or possibly some armed civilians. But if the WIG Ekranoplan/Pelican concept can be made to work then we might have to consider how we dislodge a battlegroup or even a brigade in the Arctic Archipelago.
- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 410
I diasgree with this statement. I think there are clear examples of this happening to us: a fairly senior person in our CBG is an employee of a major US parent company with a branch in Manitoba: he described an immediate freeze in relations at the time of the Chretien refusal to go to Iraq, and one that has not yet thawed. As well, I believe very strongly that the US attitude (at least among the more conservative Republican-oriented incumbents in the power seats of US business and politics) towards Canada over Iraq (and perhaps now over BMD) has contributed greatly to the leverage posessed by our US econmic opponents in the beef and softwood industries.
Having lived and studied in the US, and having now spent six months immersed in a major US operational HQ, living around US folks every da and watching their TV media, I am of the conviction that foreign policy, security and defence issues are far more important in US political and economic calculations than they would be to us. Imagine, for example, a Canadian election in which we were actually concerned about a candidate's military record: this is IMHO just one example of the degree of difference between our two societies on the issues of defence, security and foreign policy.
Cheers.
- Reaction score
- 5,575
- Points
- 1,260
Canadians must understand that political power is Canada is much more centralized, in the person and office of the prime minister, than in the US. The US president shares his power with important and independent legislators who are not dependent upon his authority or goodwill. Many, not all, of our trade problems are rooted in those legislators: senators and congressmen.pbi said:
The authority of the president is, still, considerable and a well timed, well placed phone call from the president can have â “ has had in the past â “ dramatic and beneficial effects for Canadian interests. Brian Mulroney's close relations with Ronal Reagan and George Bush the elder did pay off; he could call, the president would give him a courteous hearing and, provided the cost in political capital was not too high, the president would, more often than not, try to make the Canadian case with sometimes hostile legislators. Even the most anti-Canadian legislators (like Sen. Baucus) can be swayed by a personal call from the president.
Chrétien and Clinton had a good but not close relationship. We hear â “ rumours â “ that Clinton was often frustrated by Chrétien's inclination to play the anti-American card and was offended by one of Chrétien's infamously candid open mic comments in which he, Chrétien, bad-mouthed Clinton. Bush, we hear from the same rumour mill, detests Chrétien and wants his policies repudiated. He was prepared to favour Martin but that is, probably, all in the past, now. There is no reason for Bush, or any president, really, to spend scarce political capital on Canada's behalf â “ we are a less than loyal, supportive ally and China will, soon â “ maybe next year â “ replace us as America's largest trading partner. (We, on the other hand, will remain highly dependent on US trade and investment.)
- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 110
pbi,
I would hate to think that a company has put a freeze on relations with it's branch in Manitoba based solely on the Chretien Government decision to avoid military involvement in Iraq.
As for current Canadian Operations around the globe that are in direct support of anti-terrorism, I would like to point out a few, and the contribution Canada is making to that effort.
Op Athena 954 personnel Canadian contribution to the International Security Assistance Force
Op Foundation 6 personnel Canadian Liason with US Centcom
Op Sirius 225 personnel Canadian Forces participation in the NATO Campaign Against Terrorism
While Op Athena falls under the UN umbrella, and Op Sirius under the NATO umbrella, we as a country still have over a 1000 men and women of our armed forces directly or indirectly supporting anti-terrorist activities globally. And, we have our other global commitments to the UN, Golan Heights, Sinai, Jerusalem, Cyprus, The balkans, Africa and Dart in Sri Lanka.
I would have to guess that the company you refer too, might have had some sort of bad timing, but as far as I can see, Companies Like General Motors have not stopped shipping cars south of the boarder, I still have Florida Orange Juice and Oranges in my fridge all this winter, and I can still open a bank account at the Bank of Nova Scotia strictly for US Funds.
So while there may be isolated accounts of what you describe as happening. I really fail to see how not sending troops to Iraq will have any sort of impact on our economy or trade with the US.
As for China? Maybe they will surpass us as the USA's biggest trading partner. But just wait until Taiwan stop's being a part-time democracy and would rather have full time hours.
Edited for spelling Mr. Chretiens name worng. Sorry Jean...... :-[
I would hate to think that a company has put a freeze on relations with it's branch in Manitoba based solely on the Chretien Government decision to avoid military involvement in Iraq.
As for current Canadian Operations around the globe that are in direct support of anti-terrorism, I would like to point out a few, and the contribution Canada is making to that effort.
Op Athena 954 personnel Canadian contribution to the International Security Assistance Force
Op Foundation 6 personnel Canadian Liason with US Centcom
Op Sirius 225 personnel Canadian Forces participation in the NATO Campaign Against Terrorism
While Op Athena falls under the UN umbrella, and Op Sirius under the NATO umbrella, we as a country still have over a 1000 men and women of our armed forces directly or indirectly supporting anti-terrorist activities globally. And, we have our other global commitments to the UN, Golan Heights, Sinai, Jerusalem, Cyprus, The balkans, Africa and Dart in Sri Lanka.
I would have to guess that the company you refer too, might have had some sort of bad timing, but as far as I can see, Companies Like General Motors have not stopped shipping cars south of the boarder, I still have Florida Orange Juice and Oranges in my fridge all this winter, and I can still open a bank account at the Bank of Nova Scotia strictly for US Funds.
So while there may be isolated accounts of what you describe as happening. I really fail to see how not sending troops to Iraq will have any sort of impact on our economy or trade with the US.
As for China? Maybe they will surpass us as the USA's biggest trading partner. But just wait until Taiwan stop's being a part-time democracy and would rather have full time hours.
Edited for spelling Mr. Chretiens name worng. Sorry Jean...... :-[
- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 110
Does Canada need a Military?
I know I am releasing the hounds by saying NO.
Having said that, let me say that historically Canada has never found a need for a military force unless forced to have one. Every major conflict, whether at the call of the Empire, or responding to the international community has found Canada sitting in the corner on its thumb. And this state of being has seemed to have been the desire of Canadians since Confederation. Traditionally favour is gained from voters by supporting social programs at the cost of institutions that support our sovereignty. Canadians have repeatedly asserted that we are a touchy feely country in a state of nirvana with our sacred social programs that make us different from everyone else (USA). The belief is that this state of "Canirvana" will keep us sovereign by its mere existence. Successive Liberal governments have stayed in power almost uninterrupted over the past 50 years simply by fostering Canadian apathy. And that is probably what is most clearly the identifiable point that makes a Canadian. Some say that Canadians are "nice" or "polite" or "peacekeepers". No. Canadians are apethetic slugs that once sufficiently disturbed will do what they need to until the heat is off and they can go back to sleep in a "universal" and "multicultural" way. Here, have a tank and go away....
Such as it is, Canadians do not deserve the military they have. Except for a small number of folks who know better, the Canadian public will continue to be blissfully content with polls that say the Cdn Forces should be better supported. All the while sipping their Starbucks latte and secretly smug that we're under the cover of good ol'Uncle Sam. In effect, supporting the military while quietly suffocating it is simply the Canadian way (nothing personal, I just want my daycare and tax break).
I learned in my first few days in Cornwallis that a military force is a reflection of the country it serves. When I joined, there were 125000 people in the CF, when I retired we were just over 50k. As professional as we were, and those now serving still are, Canadian voters show time and again that they feel we don't really need a military force. A glorified civil defence force maybe. We insist, as Martin did the other day, that we are a sovereign country but we all know that in point of fact we are not, and that we fly our flag at the leasure of of our neighbour. If Canadians suddenly have a revelation or epiphany of sorts, perhaps we will have a military someday, somehow I doubt that, even with the fantasy budget recently announced. So does Canada need a Military? I and those in this Forum say yes. But Canadians really say, no.
Peter
I know I am releasing the hounds by saying NO.
Having said that, let me say that historically Canada has never found a need for a military force unless forced to have one. Every major conflict, whether at the call of the Empire, or responding to the international community has found Canada sitting in the corner on its thumb. And this state of being has seemed to have been the desire of Canadians since Confederation. Traditionally favour is gained from voters by supporting social programs at the cost of institutions that support our sovereignty. Canadians have repeatedly asserted that we are a touchy feely country in a state of nirvana with our sacred social programs that make us different from everyone else (USA). The belief is that this state of "Canirvana" will keep us sovereign by its mere existence. Successive Liberal governments have stayed in power almost uninterrupted over the past 50 years simply by fostering Canadian apathy. And that is probably what is most clearly the identifiable point that makes a Canadian. Some say that Canadians are "nice" or "polite" or "peacekeepers". No. Canadians are apethetic slugs that once sufficiently disturbed will do what they need to until the heat is off and they can go back to sleep in a "universal" and "multicultural" way. Here, have a tank and go away....
Such as it is, Canadians do not deserve the military they have. Except for a small number of folks who know better, the Canadian public will continue to be blissfully content with polls that say the Cdn Forces should be better supported. All the while sipping their Starbucks latte and secretly smug that we're under the cover of good ol'Uncle Sam. In effect, supporting the military while quietly suffocating it is simply the Canadian way (nothing personal, I just want my daycare and tax break).
I learned in my first few days in Cornwallis that a military force is a reflection of the country it serves. When I joined, there were 125000 people in the CF, when I retired we were just over 50k. As professional as we were, and those now serving still are, Canadian voters show time and again that they feel we don't really need a military force. A glorified civil defence force maybe. We insist, as Martin did the other day, that we are a sovereign country but we all know that in point of fact we are not, and that we fly our flag at the leasure of of our neighbour. If Canadians suddenly have a revelation or epiphany of sorts, perhaps we will have a military someday, somehow I doubt that, even with the fantasy budget recently announced. So does Canada need a Military? I and those in this Forum say yes. But Canadians really say, no.
Peter
S
SirLars
Guest
what an interesting thread...
Of COURSE Canada needs a military.
some points.
1. While the US is mighty, Canadians would not roll over and become the 51st state, and the entire world would react. besides... why fight, when they (our government) would roll over for whatever concessions the US wants with a little arm twisting. Their "attack" would have to be of a non-military nature.. perhaps sanctions... If the US invaded, there would be 20 MILLION new "terrorists" for them to deal with... "terrorists" that look JUST like them but with touques and "terrorists" that live right next door. Any nuke attack on us, would be a nuke attack on themselves... they are just too close. The idea of a US invasion is kinda ridiculous right now. Should they try to take over another ME country and run low on resources though..... :-\
2. Canadian nuclear weapons... that doesn't fit with the current political climate... and wouldn't that be a violation of the "no new nuke" world treaties? (I'm not sure about that)
3. Not going to Iraq DID hurt Canada in our cross-border relations, both political AND economical. While the calls for sanctions were small, they WERE there, as is the growing resentment towards Canadians. Now they want the missles, and the cows are crossing back (despite finding ANOTHER 'mad' one)1 ...
Concerning the missles, the US WILL get mad and react if we say no...however, we can USE the 'possibility' of saying no to twist THEIR arm for some concessions. They seem willing... so far. (re: mad cows)1
4. Canada's natural resources are the envy of the world, they MUST be protected... they ARE our bargaining chip because we CANNOT (like the US) use our military to force/cajole OTHER nations to 'be our friends' or "do our bidding". However, a supply of fresh water or oil can BUY them.
I think the recent commitment 2 our idiot liberals have finally shown the military is a good step forward, and that it's not just a cost, but an INVESTMENT in Canada. One that pays off in political capital (I like that term 8) ), national pride and contributes to our sovereignity. I truly hope they do not renegue on that deal.
5. I really get tired of everyone saying "the US protects us"... protects us from WHAT? :threat: THEY are arguably the greatest threat TO Canada. Any protection of our nation we receive from the US is in their best interests only.
1 On Dec. 29, 2004, The USDA announced that it recognized Canada as a "minimal-risk region" for BSE and imports of young Canadian cattle would resume March 7, 2005.
The new classification means the U.S. will not again close its borders to Canadian beef unless there are two or more cases of BSE per one million cattle older than 24 months of age in each of four consecutive years. Simply put, Canada can have up to 11 cases of BSE and still be considered a safe country for cattle exports.
The move came less than a month after U.S. President George W. Bush made his first official visit to Canada and said the process for reopening the border was underway.
http://www.cbc.ca/news/background/madcow/index.html
2Budget offers tax cuts, billions for military, environment, child care
http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story2&u=/cpress/20050223/ca_pr_on_na/fedbudget
Of COURSE Canada needs a military.
some points.
1. While the US is mighty, Canadians would not roll over and become the 51st state, and the entire world would react. besides... why fight, when they (our government) would roll over for whatever concessions the US wants with a little arm twisting. Their "attack" would have to be of a non-military nature.. perhaps sanctions... If the US invaded, there would be 20 MILLION new "terrorists" for them to deal with... "terrorists" that look JUST like them but with touques and "terrorists" that live right next door. Any nuke attack on us, would be a nuke attack on themselves... they are just too close. The idea of a US invasion is kinda ridiculous right now. Should they try to take over another ME country and run low on resources though..... :-\
2. Canadian nuclear weapons... that doesn't fit with the current political climate... and wouldn't that be a violation of the "no new nuke" world treaties? (I'm not sure about that)
3. Not going to Iraq DID hurt Canada in our cross-border relations, both political AND economical. While the calls for sanctions were small, they WERE there, as is the growing resentment towards Canadians. Now they want the missles, and the cows are crossing back (despite finding ANOTHER 'mad' one)1 ...
Concerning the missles, the US WILL get mad and react if we say no...however, we can USE the 'possibility' of saying no to twist THEIR arm for some concessions. They seem willing... so far. (re: mad cows)1
4. Canada's natural resources are the envy of the world, they MUST be protected... they ARE our bargaining chip because we CANNOT (like the US) use our military to force/cajole OTHER nations to 'be our friends' or "do our bidding". However, a supply of fresh water or oil can BUY them.
I think the recent commitment 2 our idiot liberals have finally shown the military is a good step forward, and that it's not just a cost, but an INVESTMENT in Canada. One that pays off in political capital (I like that term 8) ), national pride and contributes to our sovereignity. I truly hope they do not renegue on that deal.
5. I really get tired of everyone saying "the US protects us"... protects us from WHAT? :threat: THEY are arguably the greatest threat TO Canada. Any protection of our nation we receive from the US is in their best interests only.
1 On Dec. 29, 2004, The USDA announced that it recognized Canada as a "minimal-risk region" for BSE and imports of young Canadian cattle would resume March 7, 2005.
The new classification means the U.S. will not again close its borders to Canadian beef unless there are two or more cases of BSE per one million cattle older than 24 months of age in each of four consecutive years. Simply put, Canada can have up to 11 cases of BSE and still be considered a safe country for cattle exports.
The move came less than a month after U.S. President George W. Bush made his first official visit to Canada and said the process for reopening the border was underway.
http://www.cbc.ca/news/background/madcow/index.html
2Budget offers tax cuts, billions for military, environment, child care
http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story2&u=/cpress/20050223/ca_pr_on_na/fedbudget
- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 110
As I said earlier in the thread I know we need an army. Both for our sovereignty and to extend our values and foreign policies beyond our borders. But we should also consider another reason for a stronger Canadian Army. Millions of Canadians as well as people all around the free world have given billions of dollars in aid to organizations like UNICEF, Red Cross,etc. Does it not make sense to protect those investments with an international force to ensure that the aid gets where it belongs and not into the hands of some despot. We're sending our relief workers in naked to various countries all around the world to help sick and starving people. Would this reason alone not be altruistic enough for the Canadian people. Not to mention it's their own money that this security force would be defending.
- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 110
Rick,
I agree with that. To have the financial clout to donate x amount of dollars to relief organizations around the world, or to support your own relief organization that goes abroad to render assistance, you think that you should have a military force strong enough to ensure that relief is given to those who need it most and not into the hands of some thugs. But, that sort of protection can get you into some sticky situations. While not a humanitarian effort, or relief effort, Look at Rwanda. Canadian general Roméo Dallaire was with an International Peacekeeping force of 2600 troops to prevent further bloodshed in a civil war, and help sstabilizethe region, the UN turned their back, he gets left with 800 troops after the killing starts and then over 800 000 people are slaughtered.
Canada very much needs a military to project Canada's foreign policy abroad, to protect Canadian interests abroad, For Increased National security against International Terrorism, and to meet our on-going commitments to NATO and the UN.
I agree with that. To have the financial clout to donate x amount of dollars to relief organizations around the world, or to support your own relief organization that goes abroad to render assistance, you think that you should have a military force strong enough to ensure that relief is given to those who need it most and not into the hands of some thugs. But, that sort of protection can get you into some sticky situations. While not a humanitarian effort, or relief effort, Look at Rwanda. Canadian general Roméo Dallaire was with an International Peacekeeping force of 2600 troops to prevent further bloodshed in a civil war, and help sstabilizethe region, the UN turned their back, he gets left with 800 troops after the killing starts and then over 800 000 people are slaughtered.
Canada very much needs a military to project Canada's foreign policy abroad, to protect Canadian interests abroad, For Increased National security against International Terrorism, and to meet our on-going commitments to NATO and the UN.
- Reaction score
- 7,963
- Points
- 1,160
he
Stirling N6123:
Unfortunately companies are made up of people, individuals with opinions, and while company policy may be unaffected, the individual who makes the decision to purchase a box of staples may be less inclined to buy the box with the maple leaf on it if there is only a nickel's difference.
Yes, these types of decisions by the politicians affect Canada and us.
- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 110
This isn't even a question, every nation needs an armed forces for a myriad of reasons. I qoute one General Eisenhower (to ensure peace you must prepare for war) enough said. 
- Reaction score
- 5,575
- Points
- 1,260
Nielsen_Noetic said:This isn't even a question, every nation needs an armed forces for a myriad of reasons. I qoute one General Eisenhower (to ensure peace you must prepare for war) enough said.
Actually, Eisenhower said: "Let him who desires peace prepare for war."
More than two thousand years earlier Aristotle said: "We make war that we may live in peace."
- Reaction score
- 18
- Points
- 530
Sorry, but PeterLT has just about summed it up for me :-\
In 100 years, Canadian politicians have turned Canada into a giant, beautiful, friendly banana republic. I love her traditions, the heritage, (most of) the people - but the politicians, feeding off of apathy, patronage, and socialism - have managed to turn the populace into self-absorbed sheep.
Sorry :-[
In 100 years, Canadian politicians have turned Canada into a giant, beautiful, friendly banana republic. I love her traditions, the heritage, (most of) the people - but the politicians, feeding off of apathy, patronage, and socialism - have managed to turn the populace into self-absorbed sheep.
Sorry :-[
- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 110
The point remains the same, there will always be those willing to kill you and yours in order to take from you what is rightfully yours and to make you believe what they do.
Similar threads
