Pro-military build up folks say ---

Canada needs to build up its military because we rely on the USians to protect us and thats just not fair. We should be less reliant on them and more self-sufficient.

If you say, protect us from who? They don't seem to have an answer.

Has anyone actually ever threatened to invade Canada - 'cept the USians in 1812 or whatever?? Are we on someone's hit list.

While you may just say "Big Deal, its just some frozen pile of rock", it is OUR frozen pile of rock. If we let this one go, perhaps next could be some other islands with more importance. Say an oil discovery is made in the high arctic and it is a viable find. Our inability to assert our sovereignty combined with the loss of a similar island to another nation could make it open season for whoever can get a rig there first.

quote:

---

Pro-military build up folks say ---

Canada needs to build up its military because we rely on the USians to protect us and thats just not fair. We should be less reliant on them and more self-sufficient.

If you say, protect us from who? They don't seem to have an answer.

---

Well, I guess I am one of the more pro-military people on Babble; so I feel I should attempt to give an answer. As was pointed out by earlier posters, there are certain sovereign issues that a military or a militarized coast guard is needed for. However that could be a pretty bare bones force. Coastal defense vessels, long range patrol planes, groups like the Canadian Rangers for up north. For Canada, sovereignty is not an issue that requires infantry, artillery, and armored regiments. Nor does it require tactical helicopters, or fighters.

Also as mentioned in first post, we are lucky enough in Canada to have few real defense worries. We are bordered with a country that we enjoy reasonable good relations with. (Plus if they ever did get unfriendly, there is not much we could do about it.) Threats, like terrorism are dealt with best by the intelligence and law enforcement communities. The small role there may be for defending ourselves from terrorists for the military falls mostly in the hands of military intelligence, and special operations. Once again there appears to be no need for large numbers of tankers, gunners, and infantry.

So, up to this point I think we are in agreement. The protection argument is not a good one as far as justifying a well-equipped and capable military. However that is not the argument I use. I think that having a military is part of active foreign policy. Does the concern that members on the board regularly show for the less fortunate within Canada end at our boarders? We are fortunate to live in a nation where we fairly isolated from large-scale violence. There are lots of places where that is not the case. The military is often a critical part of restoring civil society, and providing the security needed to allow for outside aid agencies to operate. I think in the face of genocide, and/or the total collapse of civil society, that use of, or threat of force is a moral option.

Also, with a poorly equipped military we are dependent on working closely with others. A certain critical mass is needed in both terms of size and equipment to achieve independence on foreign missions. It would be nice to have the ability to act when we thought it was important to act rather than have to wait for the US to get on side. I think it is important to be able to transport, supply and defend ourselves on overseas operations. (Plus given the US’s history, I would prefer CF pilots overhead, if I were overseas.)

If you look at the CF since the Korean War, I think you would find that we have saved more lives than we have taken. I think that is a tradition that we should try and keep. We are a rich and fortunate nation. I think it is moral for us to aid the less fortunate in our country, and overseas. I think that the military is one element in an active involvement in the world.

[ 27 August 2004: Message edited by: Rand McNally ]

I'm all in favour of increasing the budget of the CF so that they can do their jobs.

Cougyr:

quote:

---

Defense begins and ends with our borders.

---

I don't think you really believe that defense begins and ends with our own borders. If that was our policy, we'd be isolationists, not peacekeepers. We wouldn't have participated in WWII or Korea, and we peacekeep (in all its various NATO and UN and other forms) because it complies with our national interests, ie: a safer world.

And Canada has let foreign countries come to Labrador so that there pilots could simulate flying over Russia. More cold war nonsense up until not that long ago. Meanwhile, German and American and Canadian military jets are scaring the hell out of migratory animals that our native people depend on for food.

It's all a lot of horse sh!t because the Soviets are no longer a real threat. Yankee military industrial complex had a joy ride for many years with what some people refer to as "Keynesian-militarism." American observers have said that the Soviets stabbed the American MIC in the back by ceding the cold war. Now, they Yanks are having to create enemies in order to justify their several hundred billion dollar a year taxpayer handouts in that country while poverty and infant mortality in the States are some of the worst, if not the worst, in the developed world.

Of course they want Canadian taxpayer handouts. It's a big con. The ba$tards have military installations in dozens of countries around the world to protect European's and others from a threat that doesn't exist anymore. The US military works from a "George Washington" principle. Old George was famous for writing letters and demanding more funding for his military. He once wrote about his soldiers freezing and starving to death in Virginia for a lack of means. How do you freeze to death in Virginia ?. No wonder Benedict Arnold wimped out in the Canadian cold and surrendered 600 troops at Quebec City.

[ 27 August 2004: Message edited by: Fidel ]

quote:

---

Originally posted by wei-chi:
Cougyr: I don't think you really believe that defense begins and ends with our own borders.

---

Yes, I do. The moment one soldier crosses a border, it is no longer defense, it is offense. The same is true for all countries. If the Americans, and others, would keep their troops home the world would be a much safer place.

quote:

---

If the Americans, and others, would keep their troops home the world would be a much safer place.

---

Well, yeah, if there was no war, it would be a safer place.

I'm more afraid of the past and present opportunities for the profiteering from death, destruction and chaos in general. As the European socialists made calls for at the end of WWI, war profiteers should be heavily taxed to reduce the profit incentives for war.

quote:

---

Originally posted by wei-chi:
Is this thread about the American or Canadian military?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by wei-chi:
Is this thread about the American or Canadian military?

---

I think that since Paul Martin and the right wing in Canada seem to be wanting to allocate our tax dollars to prop-up what is essentially a re-hash of Ronnie Raygun's Star Wars in the U.S., then why limit the discussion to a possible invasion of Canada's arctic regions by the Danes, was it?. Or was it Norway ?. ha ha. I've forgotten which now. It's hard to keep up with who's listed as an axis of evil nation these days. Perhaps we could recruit the Taliban and al Qaeda to act as our enemy ?. That is, when they're not setting off bombs in downtown Belgrade, Bishkek or Moscow. We have to try and approach this in the most enterprising way.

[ 27 August 2004: Message edited by: Fidel ]

quote:

---

And Canada has let foreign countries come to Labrador so that there pilots could simulate flying over Russia.

---

The difference between inviting someone into your country and having someone take part of your country is the same as inviting your neighbor over to play in the pool and finding out that your neighbor has annexed your pool.

quote:

---

Keep in mind that since Nagasaki and Hiroshima, the MIC and their Republican friends in the out-house have bombed 21 countries. Which of them is any better off for it ?.
I'm more afraid of the past and present opportunities for the profiteering from death, destruction and chaos in general. As the European socialists made calls for at the end of WWI, war profiteers should be heavily taxed to reduce the profit incentives for war.

Currently, Haliburton is raking in over a billion US taxpayer dollars a month with its Iraqi operations alone.

---

Canadian military? Canadian foreign policy? (tapping compass to see if the needle is stuck on S)

quote:

---

I think that since Paul Martin and the right wing in Canada seem to be wanting to allocate our tax dollars to prop-up what is essentially a re-hash of Ronnie Raygun's Star Wars in the U.S., then why limit the discussion to a possible invasion of Canada's arctic regions by the Danes, was it?. Or was it Norway ?. ha ha. I've forgotten which now. It's hard to keep up with who's listed as an axis of evil nation these days. Perhaps we could recruit the Taliban and al Qaeda to act as our enemy ?. That is, when they're not setting off bombs in downtown Belgrade, Bishkek or Moscow.

---

I suggest we discuss the Canadian military, unless someone needs to directly reference the US to illustrate their point about the Canadian military.

quote:

---

We should get out of NORAD and NATO, both of which are dominated by the US.

---

Carry on, gentlemen.

quote:

---

Originally posted by wei-chi:Yeah, if Canada wanted to be an "equal partner" in Norad, we'd have to cough-up a ton more cash.

---

Equality among colonialists ?. Interesting concept there. The Yanks could begin by paying back dues to the UN. Of course, what good are international relations to a bunch of Keynesian-militarists ?.

Liberty! Equality! Fraternity!

[ 27 August 2004: Message edited by: Fidel ]

I guess my question if phrased in one sentence would be:

The Americans are stuck in a Cold War timewarp. With the collapse of the 'other' superpower there was supposed to be a 'peace dividend'. Strangely, this never happened, sufficient proof I think that the military industrial complex is precisely the danger Eisenhower warned of. Look at the insane amount of money they pour into their war machine, and look at all the good things it is accomplishing around the world.

Why in God's name do we want to have any part of that?

The last arguably good reason for a Canadian armed forces was the second world war. Since then, what, Oka? The FLQ crisis? Or as now, doing our bit to prop up a filthily corrupt elite in Haiti?

So, maybe a bit of peacekeeping; we seem to earn points internationally there.

But as I recall, we were in Afghanistan too; our 'snipers' won a prize apparently, for shooting dead some wretched Afghans from 2000 meters. Great work; truly noble.

No, it's all a bollocks. We need to police our territorial waters to protect our fishing industry, of course...as it wipes out some of the greatest natural resources on the planet, etc. etc.

A stupid man's game, an adolescent fantasy; we should give it a chance to wither away and put our extra bucks into developing good international instruments, mechanisms, agreements, treaties, etc. to prevent the social breakdown that war is. Instead of feeding it, oh, just a tiny little bit of heroin for me today...money to arms manufacturers who flog their wares to corrupt governments that use them to keep their own people down.

Let's say you could get all the funding that the millitary needs... upgrade its capabilities so it's more than capable of preforming costal defense, peacekeeping, etc.

But, let's say the only way you could get the support to get this passed was to amend the constitution to forbid the Canadian millitary from ever being deployed outside our own territory, except in UN sanctioned peacekeeeping missions. No involvement in any more overseas wars, ever, unless you could get the level of national unanimity required to repeal the constitutional amendment.

Would you accept this?

[ 27 August 2004: Message edited by: Dogbert ]

I totally agree (or I at least hope) that there are no fuming enemies of Canada, just waiting to invade us.

One answer would be: the US. Canada claims that the Northwest Passage is part of Canada's territorial waters. The US claims that it is international waters, and regularly sends ships through without asking permission - or even informing Canadian authorities. As others have said before, it's not enough to claim sovereignity - it has to be enforced, too.

[ 27 August 2004: Message edited by: Oliver Cromwell ]

quote:

---

But, let's say the only way you could get the support to get this passed was to amend the constitution to forbid the Canadian millitary from ever being deployed overseas, except in UN sanctioned peacekeeeping missions. No involvement in any more wars, ever, unless you could get the level of national unanimity required to repeal the constitutional amendment.

---

quote:

---

But, let's say the only way you could get the support to get this passed was to amend the constitution to forbid the Canadian millitary from ever being deployed overseas, except in UN sanctioned peacekeeeping missions. No involvement in any more wars, ever, unless you could get the level of national unanimity required to repeal the constitutional amendment.

---

I'd vote no, but only because I don't believe that the UN has the best interests of its members and the world at large in heart.

If you replaced the UN with a coalition of democratic & free nations, then I'd say yes.

[ 27 August 2004: Message edited by: HeywoodFloyd ]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Dogbert:
Hypothetical question for those who think we should spend more on our millitary...

Let's say you could get all the funding that the millitary needs... upgrade its capabilities so it's more than capable of preforming costal defense, peacekeeping, etc.

But, let's say the only way you could get the support to get this passed was to amend the constitution to forbid the Canadian millitary from ever being deployed outside our own territory, except in UN sanctioned peacekeeeping missions. No involvement in any more overseas wars, ever, unless you could get the level of national unanimity required to repeal the constitutional amendment.

Would you accept this?

[ 27 August 2004: Message edited by: Dogbert ]

---

Under two conditions:

1) The UN must undergo reform in order to be effective.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Oliver Cromwell:
[Holy crap. 4 posts since Beverly's.]

One answer would be: the US. Canada claims that the Northwest Passage is part of Canada's territorial waters. The US claims that it is international waters, and regularly sends ships through without asking permission - or even informing Canadian authorities. As others have said before, it's not enough to claim sovereignity - it has to be enforced, too.

[ 27 August 2004: Message edited by: Oliver Cromwell ]

---

That's true. And instead of captain Canuck(Brian Tobin) giving Spanish fishermen the business off our Grand Banks, maybe we could see the odd American fishing boats seized and given stiff fines. Or instead of our coast guard guys ramming native fishing boats and capsizing them for trying attempting to grab a few fish, perhaps just one of those foreign ocean-going canneries could be boarded and captains written up for fishing without a liscence.

As for a "coalition of democratic & free nations", how would you define that? The US and Britain could be a "coalition of democratic and free nations." Same question goes for a UN that has "undergone reform to be effective."

quote:

---

Originally posted by Dogbert:
How about, say, an international organization open to any democratic country, with no vetos?

---

Absolutely. The vetos are one of the main faults of the UNSC because the world has changed since the end of WW2. It just does not make sense to allocate that much power to certain countries because they were major powers once upon a time.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Dogbert:

As for a "coalition of democratic & free nations", how would you define that? The US and Britain could be a "coalition of democratic and free nations." Same question goes for a UN that has "undergone reform to be effective."

---

Well, if we were going to include any of the previous "coaltion of the willing" from 2003, then perhaps Kuwait could be expected to allow more than just ten per cent of their citizens to vote in elections there. The al Sabah family has been incredibly popular there for a long time in that former sliver of Iraq.

quote:

---

Or instead of our coast guard guys ramming native fishing boats and capsizing them for trying attempting to grab a few fish,

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by wei-chi:
Fidel:

That was DFO, the department of fisheries and oceans, not the coast guard.

---