• Thanks for stopping by. Logging in to a registered account will remove all generic ads. Please reach out with any questions or concerns.

Re-establishing a Canadian Armoured Brigade in Europe

Colin Parkinson

Army.ca Legend
Reaction score
1,406
Points
940
daftandbarmy said:
Well, there was that awkward 'Vietnam Phase', for both France and the USA....

ode for a few more battalions and the Brits would have squashed Ho chi Min dreams before they even got started
 

tomahawk6

Army.ca Legend
Reaction score
61
Points
530
A brigade in Canada would be better than a token brigade in Europe IMO. Or offer a brigade for UN duty or rotate a brigade to Korea.
 

FJAG

Army.ca Fixture
Reaction score
1,465
Points
1,040
tomahawk6 said:
A brigade in Canada would be better than a token brigade in Europe IMO. Or offer a brigade for UN duty or rotate a brigade to Korea.

We have several brigades in Canada. I'm not sure why you think having them in Canada is more useful than having prepositioned equipment for them in Europe.

We have no national interest in putting a brigade into Korea.

I note that the US 8th Army now has only one manoeuvre division under its command (the 2nd Infantry) with only one ABCT forward deployed to Korea on rotation and two active duty and one NG Stryker brigades in Fort Lewis in Washington. On the other hand there are roughly eight support brigades assigned.

If the US has that little there in manoeuvre units why would we be there?

We've recently had some elements on UN duties but quite frankly, those deployments don't have the same impact that they did a half century ago because few of the conflicts/issues are as between states (like Greece and Turkey was in Cyprus) as much as between internal factions or insurgencies within a country (like Mali). As it is, there are numerous 2nd world countries who are happy to provide peacekeepers to the UN in order to earn some hard cash. Here's a list from last year. (Note that while Canada stands 59th on the list with 192 personnel we're ahead of the US which stands 85th at 34 personnel)

Incidentally, tell Trump he's a billion dollars in arrears on his dues and the peacekeeping budget with the UN. These are real dues, not the phoney baloney stuff he says countries owe to NATO.

:cheers:
 

Weinie

Army.ca Veteran
Reaction score
1,153
Points
1,010
FJAG said:
As it is, there are numerous 2nd world countries who are happy to provide peacekeepers to the UN in order to earn some hard cash. Here's a list from last year.

Incidentally, tell Trump he's a billion dollars in arrears on his dues and the peacekeeping budget with the UN. These are real dues, not the phoney baloney stuff he says countries owe to NATO.

:cheers:

We can debate the NATO 2% argument til the cows come home, but I believe the US position has merit.

I find it ironic that you cite 2nd world countries doing peacekeeping to earn hard cash, and then trash what is inevitably the paymaster for this, the U.S. Until such time as the 5 veto votes in the UN are rescinded (which will never happen), the altruistic vision upon which the UN was supposedly founded will never be realized; why would anyone with a shred of common sense look at the UN with anything but skepticism?

Reform at the UN is long overdue, if it takes a disruptive, reviled, ridiculed (by some) President to point that out, then collectively the organization, and its' leadership, has failed.
 

FJAG

Army.ca Fixture
Reaction score
1,465
Points
1,040
Weinie said:
We can debate the NATO 2% argument til the cows come home, but I believe the US position has merit.

I find it ironic that you cite 2nd world countries doing peacekeeping to earn hard cash, and then trash what is inevitably the paymaster for this, the U.S. Until such time as the 5 veto votes in the UN are rescinded (which will never happen), the altruistic vision upon which the UN was supposedly founded will never be realized; why would anyone with a shred of common sense look at the UN with anything but skepticism?

Reform at the UN is long overdue, if it takes a disruptive, reviled, ridiculed (by some) President to point that out, then collectively the organization, and its' leadership, has failed.

The 2% isn't really a question for much debate. We agreed to it and like many of the European nations will undoubtedly not reach it by the 2024 deadline (even before the pandemic) My point with "phoney baloney" was that these aren't "dues" to pay to NATO like Trump keeps thinking they are but internal spending objectives.

While the US has always borne a major percentage of the UN budget (around 28%) the US has had shortfalls which for the period 2017 to the present add up to around a billion USD.

There are definitely shortcomings with the UN but don't confuse a purported failed organization with one that simply doesn't dance to the US's tune anymore. The world is made up of a lot of diverse opinions (many of which are revolting) but the UN is still the only agency that allows those opinions to be expressed in an open peaceful manner.

There are many countries which disagree with various UN activities and policies but the US is the one country which most frequently threatens to take it's football and go home when things don't work out the way that it wants. Just wait to see the fur fly again when the Iran Snapback doesn't go it's way.

:cheers:
 

Weinie

Army.ca Veteran
Reaction score
1,153
Points
1,010
FJAG said:
The 2% isn't really a question for much debate. We agreed to it and like many of the European nations will undoubtedly not reach it by the 2024 deadline (even before the pandemic) My point with "phoney baloney" was that these aren't "dues" to pay to NATO like Trump keeps thinking they are but internal spending objectives. - "agreed upon across the Alliance"

While the US has always borne a major percentage of the UN budget (around 28%) the US has had shortfalls which for the period 2017 to the present add up to around a billion USD.

There are definitely shortcomings with the UN but don't confuse a purported failed organization with one that simply doesn't dance to the US's tune anymore. The world is made up of a lot of diverse opinions (many of which are revolting) but the UN is still the only agency that allows those opinions to be expressed in an open peaceful manner.

There are many countries which disagree with various UN activities and policies but the US is the one country which most frequently threatens to take it's football and go home when things don't work out the way that it wants. Just wait to see the fur fly again when the Iran Snapback doesn't go it's way.

:cheers:

Which Countries Have Vetoed The Most In The UN?
Rank Country Number of UN Security Council resolutions vetoed by permanent members 1946-2017
1 USSR/Russian Federation 107
2 USA 79
3 UK 29
4 France 16
5 China 11

China just mostly abstains
 

FJAG

Army.ca Fixture
Reaction score
1,465
Points
1,040
Weinie said:
Which Countries Have Vetoed The Most In The UN?
Rank Country Number of UN Security Council resolutions vetoed by permanent members 1946-2017
1 USSR/Russian Federation 107
2 USA 79
3 UK 29
4 France 16
5 China 11

China just mostly abstains

I'm not so sure how much that means. Some of the vetos are because the resolution put forward is a boneheaded idea while in other cases the veto is the result of a boneheaded objection. I think that you need to study the actual resolutions and vetos to see who's being the problem. I do note that many of the vetos pair up countries with the US, UK and France vetoing together and the USSR/Russia and sometimes China. Quite frequently, however, the US or Russia stands alone in its Veto.

:cheers:
 

Weinie

Army.ca Veteran
Reaction score
1,153
Points
1,010
It means that contrary to your conjecture, the U.S.is not the one that most often doesn't play, which makes most of your argument specious.
Get it that you are not a US foreign policy fan, I shudder to think where we would be without their clout in the last fifty or sixty years.
 

FJAG

Army.ca Fixture
Reaction score
1,465
Points
1,040
Weinie said:
It means that contrary to your conjecture, the U.S.is not the one that most often doesn't play, which makes most of your argument specious.
Get it that you are not a US foreign policy fan, I shudder to think where we would be without their clout in the last fifty or sixty years.

Actually, you've got it quite wrong. I've always been a fan of the US and most of it's foreign policy at least until this last regime whose foreign policy is fitful and capricious. Incidentally, the US criticism of the UN goes back quite a way before this most recent "disruptive, reviled, ridiculed (by some) President".

The US is (or at least was) the world's premier power and quite properly should use that power to shape events in a way favourable to the western world (and of course itself). That's not to say, however, that one has to slavishly agree with everything they do.

I've, quite frankly, lost your point here. Is it that I alluded to the fact that the US is being hypocritical when it says certain NATO countries aren't paying their "dues" (which aren't really dues at all) when it's in arrears to the UN? Or is it the assertion that when the US isn't happy these days it threatens to pick up its football? (or perhaps, more accurately, unilaterally pull out of treaties and agreements willy-nilly) Incidentally, how's the most recent Aluminum tariff working for you? I mean if my argument is specious, I'd like to know which one.

:cheers:
 

Weinie

Army.ca Veteran
Reaction score
1,153
Points
1,010
FJAG said:
There are many countries which disagree with various UN activities and policies but the US is the one country which most frequently threatens to take it's football and go home when things don't work out the way that it wants. Just wait to see the fur fly again when the Iran Snapback doesn't go it's way.

:cheers:

I have re-posted your quote. It is not correct.
 

FJAG

Army.ca Fixture
Reaction score
1,465
Points
1,040
Weinie said:
I have re-posted your quote. It is not correct.

I still contend that the number of times a UN veto is used is not indicative of anything unless you do a full analysis of what the various resolutions are. But to end this "is to, is not" back and forth I'll withdraw the word "most" and just leave it at "frequently".

Incidentally add Open Skies to this list of treaties and agreements Trump has abandoned.

:cheers:
 

MilEME09

Army.ca Veteran
Reaction score
607
Points
940
It should be noted that while rarely used there is actually a mechanism for the general assembly to over ride a veto. Good luck getting the 2/3 majority to vote to do it though.

Back on topic though, strategically speaking NATO's South eastern flank around Romania seems the most vulnerable, Ukraine may be quickly trying to modernize but the latest analysis by Janes puts there ability to sustain large scale combat or offensive operations in doubt. Given that, Russia could seize the black sea quickly, and the launch operations against Romania, Bulgaria,turkey and Greece. A armoured thrust through Ukraine combined with an amphibious invasion of the Romanian Coast is a feasible attack against NATO. So where would any permanent Canadiam presance best be placed?
 
S

stellarpanther

Guest
Weinie said:
It means that contrary to your conjecture, the U.S.is not the one that most often doesn't play, which makes most of your argument specious.
Get it that you are not a US foreign policy fan, I shudder to think where we would be without their clout in the last fifty or sixty years.

Well without American bullying of other countries, there probably would have been a lot less war and violence, certainly that's the case since the Korean war. They tend to start a lot of them or stick their nose where it doesn't belong and make things worse and then pressure other countries to join with them so they don't look bad.  Clout isn't a word I would use.

 

Weinie

Army.ca Veteran
Reaction score
1,153
Points
1,010
stellarpanther said:
Well without American bullying of other countries, there probably would have been a lot less war and violence, certainly that's the case since the Korean war. They tend to start a lot of them or stick their nose where it doesn't belong and make things worse and then pressure other countries to join with them so they don't look bad.  Clout isn't a word I would use.

Here is a list of major conflicts/wars since the Korean War. I count 1 that the Americans started, and a bunch where there noses weren't in it.(until the rest of the World started clamoring for them to "Do something.")

Korean War (1950–53)
Algerian War (1954–62)
Vietnam War (1954–75)
Six-Day War (1967)
War of Attrition (1969–70)
Yom Kippur War (1973)
Afghan War (1978–92)
Iran-Iraq War (1980–88)
Falkland Islands War (1982)
Persian Gulf War (1990–91)
Bosnian conflict (1992–95)
Kosovo conflict (1998–99)
Afghanistan War (2001–14)
Iraq War (2003–11)
Syrian Civil War (2012– )
 

dapaterson

Army.ca Relic
Subscriber
Donor
Reaction score
1,844
Points
890
I admire your optimistic use of end dates for Afghanistan and Iraq.
 
Top