- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 50
Posted by "Ian Edwards" <[email protected]> on Mon, 29 Jan 2001 15:49:12 -0700
To: Donald Schepens:
Dear Neighbour:
I still haven‘t seen the original article in the Ottawa paper seems I
missed getting the e-mail that had the URL so I‘m flying blind. I‘ve
got a hunch that Marsh‘s job is similar to that of Canada‘s Col. Buster
Brown in the 1920s, who was our only staff officer in charge of dreaming up
contingecy plans. Seems he went swanning about the northern states gathering
information for possible Canadian counter attacks in the event of American
invasion, preparing moblization plans for the quick assembly of five or six
divisions equipped across Canada. I think his plan was a quick thrust from
Winnipeg deep into Minnesota .... and..... well .... perhaps "pot" was legal
then or was it just a very strong brand of pipe tobacco.
"Fifty years ago still part of the "Greater" British Army." One could argue
that, yes. More accurately, 50 years ago we were mobilizing companies -
from
our PRes of the day - to form battalions for NATO service in addition to
raising units for
Korea and we entered NATO to form a balance between our otherwise total
reliance on our one partner to the immediate south.
The decline of the British influence over the domestic "tone" of our Army
coincided with
the decline of the British Empire, particularly in the early 1960s and the
turning of British interests to the European Common Market and their doing
away with the preferential tariffs granted Canada and other Dominions.
Trade and "the flag" the military nearly always go hand in hand.
Ian Edwards
Sherwood Park
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: Donald Schepens
> To:
> Sent: Sunday, January 28, 2001 8:07 PM
> Subject: Re: Ottawa Citizen
>
>
> > You have to remember that this speculation is by Col Howie Marsh. His
job
> > is to look for possibilities he is paid to think and look at
> > possiblilities. It may have little to do with the truth. Having said
> > this, 50 years ago we were effectively indistinguishable as a part of
the
> > "Greater" British Army.
> >
> >
> > ----- Original Message -----
> > From: Ian Edwards
> > To:
> > Sent: Saturday, January 27, 2001 11:14 PM
> > Subject: Ottawa Citizen
> >
> >
> > > I don‘t understand the reasoning of any "school of thought" that would
> > argue
> > > that because Canada has stopped seriously investing in defence that
> Canada
> > > might as well throw in the towel on nationhood. Couple of big
> assumptions
> > > here. First that we are not seriously investing in our defence begs
the
> > > question what is a serious amount and what is the purpose of such
> defence?
> > > Defending our property against all comers: I would suggest that only
the
> > US,
> > > Russian and China are capable of such a defence of their own land
> without
> > > help from any allies and even then not with ease.
> > >
> > > But I didn‘t receive the URL of the original posting, and so do not
know
> > > what the Colonel? was reported as saying. I do know a lot more about
> cap
> > > badges but not as much as I thought I knew 30 years ago. Here‘s a
little
> > > quiz for you. What cap badge was worn by members of the 2nd Aerodrome
> > > Defence Company in WW2? Ditto members of The Canadian Film Photo
Unit?
> > >
> > >
> > > ----- Original Message -----
> > > From: Joan O. Arc
> > > To:
> > > Sent: Saturday, January 27, 2001 7:46 PM
> > > Subject: RE: RE: Re: Ottawa Citizen
> > >
> > >
> > > > True enough.
> > > >
> > > > There is, after all, a school of thought popular in certain mostly
> > > > conservative political circles that as the Canadian government
> decided
> > in
> > > > the 50s and 60s to stop seriously investing in our national defense
> > system
> > > > and to rely heavily on our generous neighbours to the south,
instead,
> it
> > > > therefore follows that we might as well throw in the towel on
> nationhood
> > > > sooner rather than later, since we are - as you so ably point out -
> > > > obviously neither willing nor able to assume the heavy burden of
> > properly
> > > > defending our vast territory against all comers.
> > > >
> > > > I can only presume, based on your comments, that you probably concur
> > with
> > > > this, and I suppose the next logical step - following your
reasoning,
> > and,
> > > > indeed, my own - is for our military and political leaders to own up
> to
> > > the
> > > > corner into which we have painted ourselves over the past 40 years
or
> > so,
> > > > largely through our failure to invest in the military and, for that
> > > matter,
> > > > related key strategic industries and to begin "making other plans"
> for
> > > our
> > > > national resources - As the good Colonel quoted in the *Citizen*
> > article
> > > > indeed seems to be doing. - instead.
> > > >
> > > > Now *there*‘s an issue worthy of being addressed through one of
> > Stockwell
> > > > Day‘s beloved national referenda, don‘t you think?
> > > >
> > > > But enough of this gloomy - and highly speculative - talk. It‘s high
> > time
> > > to
> > > > get back to the cap badges, or so say I... :
> > > >
> > > > - Joan
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > ----Original Message Follows----
> > > > From: [email protected]
> > > > Reply-To: [email protected]
> > > > To: [email protected]
> > > > Subject: RE: RE: Re: Ottawa Citizen
> > > > Date: Sat, 27 Jan 2001 08:08:05 -0800
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > Personally I don‘t believe that that is a reasonable "threat"
> > > > that could realistically be met within Canadian resources military
> > > > or national. It is all too easy to conceieve outlandish "what-if"
> > > > scenarios that distract us from current issues.
> > > >
> > > > So what if we did decide that the US was a material military
> > > > threat looking to steal our resources. Should we become a North
> > > > Korea, diverting so much of our national resources to counter
> > > > a paranoid-delusional threat while watching our people slowly
> > > > starve on nationally controlled minimum rations?
> > > >
> > > > We need realistic objectives and missions for our Forces, defending
> > > > the Canada-US border isn‘t one of them.
> > > >
> > > > Mike
> > > >
> > > > PS - I am curently two weeks into a ten-week Command and Staff
> > > > Scourse, so my opportinities to review and respond on this means
> > > > will be erratic for a few more months.
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > --- Original Message ---
> > > > "Joan O. Arc" Wrote on
> > > > Sat, 27 Jan 2001 07:13:59 -0000
> > > > ------------------
> > > > Your reply is - as always - both informed and logical. It falls
> > > > down on only
> > > > one point, I think: What if the greatest threat to Canada‘s
> territorial
> > > >
> > > > integrity/sovereignty were ever to be - hard though it may be
> > > > to imagine
> > > > such a scenario, I know - the good ol‘ US of A?
> > > >
> > > > With growing power and water shortages in the American West and
> > > > with plenty
> > > > of both up here espec. in our West it isn‘t impossible to envision
> > > > a
> > > > scenario in which the temptation to make a hasty and nasty "grab"
> > > > - instead
> > > > of doing what decent nations and allies do, which is to gain
> > > > access to
> > > > neighbours‘ commodities and resources thru trade - might arise...
> > > >
> > > > Nevertheless, your point about the benefits of sharing an
operational
> > > >
> > > > doctrine is well taken.
> > > >
> > > > Good to have you back on the list. Was starting to think we had
> > > > driven you
> > > > into the wild, blue yonder.
> > > >
> > > > Cheers,
> > > >
> > > > Joan
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > ----Original Message Follows----
> > > > From: [email protected]
> > > > Reply-To: [email protected]
> > > > To: [email protected]
> > > > Subject: RE: Re: Ottawa Citizen
> > > > Date: Fri, 26 Jan 2001 10:00:35 -0800
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > Keep in mind that the article only offers "soundbites" of a
discussion
> > > > with a senior officer whose job it is to explore and consider
> > > > options of evolution for our army and on a time scale that most
> > > > of us do not envision everyday, take for example the degree of
> > > > immediacy and self-interest of the problems discussed on the
> > > > Army Home Page‘s venues.
> > > >
> > > > There are many facets to the Colonel‘s remarks which do not
> necessarily
> > > > require a leap to the reporter‘s inference that Canada‘s Army
> > > > could simply become a subordinate formation in the American Army.
> > > > As the western nations evolve more and more toward a Coalition
> > > > concept of higher level operations ex: Gulf War, the Balkans,
> > > > a greater amount of system interoperability is required in command,
> > > > control and information systems, logistic systems to ensure greater
> > > > operational flexibility and sustainment, and doctrinal approaches
> > > > to force structure and employment.
> > > >
> > > > If the European nations can agree on a single currency, then
> > > > perhaps we can share an operational doctrine with the US and/or
> > > > other nations that will make us more effective in combined
> operations.
> > > >
> > > > Mike
> > > >
> > > > The Regimental Rogue
> > > > http://regimentalrogue.tripod.com
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > --- Original Message ---
> > > > "Joan O. Arc" Wrote on
> > > > Thu, 25 Jan 2001 06:44:35 -0000
> > > > ------------------
> > > > Aaargh! Oh well, that article only reflects the inevitable, I
> > > > suppose.
> > > >
> > > > With the federal government passing "Clarity Bills" that are
> > > > neither more
> > > > nor less than recipes on "how to break up the country", and with
> > > > millions in
> > > > Canadian and, or so the rumour goes US oil $$$ being spent
> > > > to try to
> > > > foment separatism in the West and who *knows* where the money
> > > > that keeps
> > > > the separatists in Quebec afloat comes from?!?!, it‘s only to
> > > > be expected
> > > > that some in the military have now thrown in the towel on the
> > > > country
> > > > they‘re being paid to defend, I guess.
> > > >
> > > > Just one question: How widely shared is the good Colonel‘s Forgive
> > > > me if I
> > > > get the rank wrong. point-of-view? Any takers???
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > - J.O.A.
> > > >
> > > > ----Original Message Follows----
> > > > From: "Gow"
> > > > Reply-To: [email protected]
> > > > To:
> > > > Subject: Ottawa Citizen
> > > > Date: Wed, 24 Jan 2001 22:54:58 -0500
> > > >
> > > > Note tonight‘s exerpt on the internet declaims a merger between
> > > > the USA and
> > > > Canadian Military by the year 2020 closure of Canada‘a Military
> > > > Officer
> > > > Schools, etc.
> > > >
> > > > Interesting reading, regardless of which side of the inevitable
> > > > argument
> > > > you‘re on.
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > -----
> > > > Sent using MailStart.com http://MailStart.Com/welcome.html
> > > > The FREE way to access your mailbox via any web browser, anywhere!
> > > >
> > > > --------------------------------------------------------
> > > > NOTE: To remove yourself from this list, send a message
> > > > to [email protected] from the account you wish to
> > > > remove, with the line "unsubscribe army-list" in the
> > > > message body.
> > > >
> > > >
> >
_________________________________________________________________________
> > > > Get Your Private, Free E-mail from MSN Hotmail at
> > http://www.hotmail.com.
> > > >
> > > > --------------------------------------------------------
> > > > NOTE: To remove yourself from this list, send a message
> > > > to [email protected] from the account you wish to
> > > > remove, with the line "unsubscribe army-list" in the
> > > > message body.
> > >
> > > --------------------------------------------------------
> > > NOTE: To remove yourself from this list, send a message
> > > to [email protected] from the account you wish to
> > > remove, with the line "unsubscribe army-list" in the
> > > message body.
> >
> > --------------------------------------------------------
> > NOTE: To remove yourself from this list, send a message
> > to [email protected] from the account you wish to
> > remove, with the line "unsubscribe army-list" in the
> > message body.
>
--------------------------------------------------------
NOTE: To remove yourself from this list, send a message
to [email protected] from the account you wish to
remove, with the line "unsubscribe army-list" in the
message body.
To: Donald Schepens:
Dear Neighbour:
I still haven‘t seen the original article in the Ottawa paper seems I
missed getting the e-mail that had the URL so I‘m flying blind. I‘ve
got a hunch that Marsh‘s job is similar to that of Canada‘s Col. Buster
Brown in the 1920s, who was our only staff officer in charge of dreaming up
contingecy plans. Seems he went swanning about the northern states gathering
information for possible Canadian counter attacks in the event of American
invasion, preparing moblization plans for the quick assembly of five or six
divisions equipped across Canada. I think his plan was a quick thrust from
Winnipeg deep into Minnesota .... and..... well .... perhaps "pot" was legal
then or was it just a very strong brand of pipe tobacco.
"Fifty years ago still part of the "Greater" British Army." One could argue
that, yes. More accurately, 50 years ago we were mobilizing companies -
from
our PRes of the day - to form battalions for NATO service in addition to
raising units for
Korea and we entered NATO to form a balance between our otherwise total
reliance on our one partner to the immediate south.
The decline of the British influence over the domestic "tone" of our Army
coincided with
the decline of the British Empire, particularly in the early 1960s and the
turning of British interests to the European Common Market and their doing
away with the preferential tariffs granted Canada and other Dominions.
Trade and "the flag" the military nearly always go hand in hand.
Ian Edwards
Sherwood Park
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: Donald Schepens
> To:
> Sent: Sunday, January 28, 2001 8:07 PM
> Subject: Re: Ottawa Citizen
>
>
> > You have to remember that this speculation is by Col Howie Marsh. His
job
> > is to look for possibilities he is paid to think and look at
> > possiblilities. It may have little to do with the truth. Having said
> > this, 50 years ago we were effectively indistinguishable as a part of
the
> > "Greater" British Army.
> >
> >
> > ----- Original Message -----
> > From: Ian Edwards
> > To:
> > Sent: Saturday, January 27, 2001 11:14 PM
> > Subject: Ottawa Citizen
> >
> >
> > > I don‘t understand the reasoning of any "school of thought" that would
> > argue
> > > that because Canada has stopped seriously investing in defence that
> Canada
> > > might as well throw in the towel on nationhood. Couple of big
> assumptions
> > > here. First that we are not seriously investing in our defence begs
the
> > > question what is a serious amount and what is the purpose of such
> defence?
> > > Defending our property against all comers: I would suggest that only
the
> > US,
> > > Russian and China are capable of such a defence of their own land
> without
> > > help from any allies and even then not with ease.
> > >
> > > But I didn‘t receive the URL of the original posting, and so do not
know
> > > what the Colonel? was reported as saying. I do know a lot more about
> cap
> > > badges but not as much as I thought I knew 30 years ago. Here‘s a
little
> > > quiz for you. What cap badge was worn by members of the 2nd Aerodrome
> > > Defence Company in WW2? Ditto members of The Canadian Film Photo
Unit?
> > >
> > >
> > > ----- Original Message -----
> > > From: Joan O. Arc
> > > To:
> > > Sent: Saturday, January 27, 2001 7:46 PM
> > > Subject: RE: RE: Re: Ottawa Citizen
> > >
> > >
> > > > True enough.
> > > >
> > > > There is, after all, a school of thought popular in certain mostly
> > > > conservative political circles that as the Canadian government
> decided
> > in
> > > > the 50s and 60s to stop seriously investing in our national defense
> > system
> > > > and to rely heavily on our generous neighbours to the south,
instead,
> it
> > > > therefore follows that we might as well throw in the towel on
> nationhood
> > > > sooner rather than later, since we are - as you so ably point out -
> > > > obviously neither willing nor able to assume the heavy burden of
> > properly
> > > > defending our vast territory against all comers.
> > > >
> > > > I can only presume, based on your comments, that you probably concur
> > with
> > > > this, and I suppose the next logical step - following your
reasoning,
> > and,
> > > > indeed, my own - is for our military and political leaders to own up
> to
> > > the
> > > > corner into which we have painted ourselves over the past 40 years
or
> > so,
> > > > largely through our failure to invest in the military and, for that
> > > matter,
> > > > related key strategic industries and to begin "making other plans"
> for
> > > our
> > > > national resources - As the good Colonel quoted in the *Citizen*
> > article
> > > > indeed seems to be doing. - instead.
> > > >
> > > > Now *there*‘s an issue worthy of being addressed through one of
> > Stockwell
> > > > Day‘s beloved national referenda, don‘t you think?
> > > >
> > > > But enough of this gloomy - and highly speculative - talk. It‘s high
> > time
> > > to
> > > > get back to the cap badges, or so say I... :
> > > >
> > > > - Joan
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > ----Original Message Follows----
> > > > From: [email protected]
> > > > Reply-To: [email protected]
> > > > To: [email protected]
> > > > Subject: RE: RE: Re: Ottawa Citizen
> > > > Date: Sat, 27 Jan 2001 08:08:05 -0800
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > Personally I don‘t believe that that is a reasonable "threat"
> > > > that could realistically be met within Canadian resources military
> > > > or national. It is all too easy to conceieve outlandish "what-if"
> > > > scenarios that distract us from current issues.
> > > >
> > > > So what if we did decide that the US was a material military
> > > > threat looking to steal our resources. Should we become a North
> > > > Korea, diverting so much of our national resources to counter
> > > > a paranoid-delusional threat while watching our people slowly
> > > > starve on nationally controlled minimum rations?
> > > >
> > > > We need realistic objectives and missions for our Forces, defending
> > > > the Canada-US border isn‘t one of them.
> > > >
> > > > Mike
> > > >
> > > > PS - I am curently two weeks into a ten-week Command and Staff
> > > > Scourse, so my opportinities to review and respond on this means
> > > > will be erratic for a few more months.
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > --- Original Message ---
> > > > "Joan O. Arc" Wrote on
> > > > Sat, 27 Jan 2001 07:13:59 -0000
> > > > ------------------
> > > > Your reply is - as always - both informed and logical. It falls
> > > > down on only
> > > > one point, I think: What if the greatest threat to Canada‘s
> territorial
> > > >
> > > > integrity/sovereignty were ever to be - hard though it may be
> > > > to imagine
> > > > such a scenario, I know - the good ol‘ US of A?
> > > >
> > > > With growing power and water shortages in the American West and
> > > > with plenty
> > > > of both up here espec. in our West it isn‘t impossible to envision
> > > > a
> > > > scenario in which the temptation to make a hasty and nasty "grab"
> > > > - instead
> > > > of doing what decent nations and allies do, which is to gain
> > > > access to
> > > > neighbours‘ commodities and resources thru trade - might arise...
> > > >
> > > > Nevertheless, your point about the benefits of sharing an
operational
> > > >
> > > > doctrine is well taken.
> > > >
> > > > Good to have you back on the list. Was starting to think we had
> > > > driven you
> > > > into the wild, blue yonder.
> > > >
> > > > Cheers,
> > > >
> > > > Joan
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > ----Original Message Follows----
> > > > From: [email protected]
> > > > Reply-To: [email protected]
> > > > To: [email protected]
> > > > Subject: RE: Re: Ottawa Citizen
> > > > Date: Fri, 26 Jan 2001 10:00:35 -0800
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > Keep in mind that the article only offers "soundbites" of a
discussion
> > > > with a senior officer whose job it is to explore and consider
> > > > options of evolution for our army and on a time scale that most
> > > > of us do not envision everyday, take for example the degree of
> > > > immediacy and self-interest of the problems discussed on the
> > > > Army Home Page‘s venues.
> > > >
> > > > There are many facets to the Colonel‘s remarks which do not
> necessarily
> > > > require a leap to the reporter‘s inference that Canada‘s Army
> > > > could simply become a subordinate formation in the American Army.
> > > > As the western nations evolve more and more toward a Coalition
> > > > concept of higher level operations ex: Gulf War, the Balkans,
> > > > a greater amount of system interoperability is required in command,
> > > > control and information systems, logistic systems to ensure greater
> > > > operational flexibility and sustainment, and doctrinal approaches
> > > > to force structure and employment.
> > > >
> > > > If the European nations can agree on a single currency, then
> > > > perhaps we can share an operational doctrine with the US and/or
> > > > other nations that will make us more effective in combined
> operations.
> > > >
> > > > Mike
> > > >
> > > > The Regimental Rogue
> > > > http://regimentalrogue.tripod.com
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > --- Original Message ---
> > > > "Joan O. Arc" Wrote on
> > > > Thu, 25 Jan 2001 06:44:35 -0000
> > > > ------------------
> > > > Aaargh! Oh well, that article only reflects the inevitable, I
> > > > suppose.
> > > >
> > > > With the federal government passing "Clarity Bills" that are
> > > > neither more
> > > > nor less than recipes on "how to break up the country", and with
> > > > millions in
> > > > Canadian and, or so the rumour goes US oil $$$ being spent
> > > > to try to
> > > > foment separatism in the West and who *knows* where the money
> > > > that keeps
> > > > the separatists in Quebec afloat comes from?!?!, it‘s only to
> > > > be expected
> > > > that some in the military have now thrown in the towel on the
> > > > country
> > > > they‘re being paid to defend, I guess.
> > > >
> > > > Just one question: How widely shared is the good Colonel‘s Forgive
> > > > me if I
> > > > get the rank wrong. point-of-view? Any takers???
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > - J.O.A.
> > > >
> > > > ----Original Message Follows----
> > > > From: "Gow"
> > > > Reply-To: [email protected]
> > > > To:
> > > > Subject: Ottawa Citizen
> > > > Date: Wed, 24 Jan 2001 22:54:58 -0500
> > > >
> > > > Note tonight‘s exerpt on the internet declaims a merger between
> > > > the USA and
> > > > Canadian Military by the year 2020 closure of Canada‘a Military
> > > > Officer
> > > > Schools, etc.
> > > >
> > > > Interesting reading, regardless of which side of the inevitable
> > > > argument
> > > > you‘re on.
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > -----
> > > > Sent using MailStart.com http://MailStart.Com/welcome.html
> > > > The FREE way to access your mailbox via any web browser, anywhere!
> > > >
> > > > --------------------------------------------------------
> > > > NOTE: To remove yourself from this list, send a message
> > > > to [email protected] from the account you wish to
> > > > remove, with the line "unsubscribe army-list" in the
> > > > message body.
> > > >
> > > >
> >
_________________________________________________________________________
> > > > Get Your Private, Free E-mail from MSN Hotmail at
> > http://www.hotmail.com.
> > > >
> > > > --------------------------------------------------------
> > > > NOTE: To remove yourself from this list, send a message
> > > > to [email protected] from the account you wish to
> > > > remove, with the line "unsubscribe army-list" in the
> > > > message body.
> > >
> > > --------------------------------------------------------
> > > NOTE: To remove yourself from this list, send a message
> > > to [email protected] from the account you wish to
> > > remove, with the line "unsubscribe army-list" in the
> > > message body.
> >
> > --------------------------------------------------------
> > NOTE: To remove yourself from this list, send a message
> > to [email protected] from the account you wish to
> > remove, with the line "unsubscribe army-list" in the
> > message body.
>
--------------------------------------------------------
NOTE: To remove yourself from this list, send a message
to [email protected] from the account you wish to
remove, with the line "unsubscribe army-list" in the
message body.
