Previous  1 ... 6  7  8  9  10  11  12  13  Next

It's a fact in the debate on the Iraq war, between US and Canada, left out. It was a rational explanation to non participation utilized by the Canadian gov't. The military can only go so far..... half way around the world or protecting Canada's territory. This has been widely ignored.

Just a small piece to the big arguement..... Mind you, Canada's military must be lifted from this pathetic state. It can't go on like this. Canada's sovereignty depends on it.

   

I've been posting in this thread for three days without being able to make sense of the topic, and this little blurb has done nothing to clear it up for me.





.

   

Yah I think this thread has divided into 3 or 4 seperate topics in themselves

   

I'm with Peter. Canada is neither a pacifist nation, nor a neutral one. We are allied with the US, Britain and NATO. (I say this, as you know, as an ardent opponent of the invasion of Iraq, but that doesn't change the facts or my opinion). We have international responsibilities further to that alliance, and to my mind one of those responsibilities is to be able to pull your own weight when things go awry. Lately I'm reading the news and I'm thinking that things are going awry.

We need a strong military.

   

Entirely possible.

I don't think, though, that Artic land claims are necessarily a military question.

The ancient rule in land claims is that you maintain them by any sort of regular presence. A non-military presence is enough.

All you would have to do is regularly send Mounties up there on camping (i.e., training) trips, and you have a presence.

The Canadian Coast Guard has "ice-stregnthened" patrol vessels. Perhaps scheduling more trips there, (maybe more of these boats), and you're done.


* * *
Canada WOULD have more of a voice in NATO and other treaty arrangements (UN), if it was bringing more to the table.





.

   

Canada claims that teh northwest passage classifies as "inland waters" and therefore in our jurisdiction as per international custom. I gather that even Canadian policy wonks don't think this is a great argument.

Possession is ninth-tenths of the law and if we can demonstrate activity in the area, our claim is strengthened.

Ideally, I think Canada would be given custodianship of the northwest passage the same way Australia has custodianship of the Great Barrier Reef. Regardless of the outcome of claims, we need to protect the environment in that area.

   

Canada isnt a pacifist nation? I dont understand, where has Canada displayed any agression in the last 20 years? What does being allied with the US,Britain, or NATO have to do with not being pacifist? You mean to say that Canada doesn't stand by the fact that disputes between nations should and can be settled peacefully? Before you start jumping up and down, im all for a strong military as well, to this we can agree, but simply displaying agressive military procedures isnt Canadas way and if you look at the military, its been that way for 10 years now. However, if Denmark ever goes more anal about the islands, then im all for teaching them a lesson.

   

We could start a Havarti boycott...

(that'd be pacifist.... )

Do we disagree?

My point is, you don't need Baffin Island naval bases. If you effectively patrol it, it's yours.




.

   

Not your choice as Canada does not have ample enough 'guns'.

You don't have to USE the weapons and I'm not advocating that Canada blows the shit out of everyone. Not at all.

I'm not saying Canada should USE her fleet aircraft carriers, her Aegis (or equivalent) missile destroyers, or her nuclear attack submarines.

I'm saying Canada should HAVE these things.

   

Ok I understand you, but why would we want to spend millions of money just HAVING them and not USING them?

   

Well, I don't quite know about nuclear attack submarines, but air and ground forces can be used in so-called 'peacekeeping' missions.

Why have that capability? Because that gives Canada a say in how NATO and the UN conduct operations.

If you're not bringing anything to the table, who cares what you think?




.

   

You said it better than I did and in less words.

   

I mean we don't start wars but we do finish them.

   

There is an odd principle of arms that eludes pacifists and illogical people and that is the fact that no country has ever been attacked because it was too strong. Japan attacked the US after the US had gone on a twenty-year bender of isolationism and almost catastrophic disarmament. Iran seized the US Embassy in Tehran because they accurately estimated that the US leadership and its military at that time couldn't find their asses with both hands.

The Pax Brittania is a good example of this principle. There was a point when Britain was so damned powerful that not only did no one attack England, no one even messed with anyone else for fear the British Fleet would come in and rain down hell.

The fact of the matter is that Canada has more territory than she can currently defend on her own.

You don't like or trust the USA and I'm telling you that this is a good thing especially as concerned with Canada's defence.

If we get another pacifist in the White House like Carter or a traitor like Hillary Clinton who takes money from China then what is Canada to do if the US President turns a blind eye to Chinese aggression in Canada?

Canada depending on the USA for her defence is a clear statement of weakness and this very fact is Canadian Forces military policy in the event of a major confrontation.

I support a strong Canada that can not only protect 100% of Canadian territory but PROJECT Canadian power when necessary.

For argument's sake if Chinese troops land in Vancouver the best place to hit back is Beijing. Canada is less likely to face such a scenario if the Chinese know their skies and seas will be filled with angry Maple Leaf bearing aircraft and vessels if they press claims in Canada. By the way, China has said they want an "economic zone" in Vancouver so the scenario isn't just me blowing wind up your kilt.

Right now the ability of Canada to strike a foreign foe on her own is about nil. Canadian military self-defence policy is currently to call the US Ambassador so Canada is essentially telling her potential foes she is weak.

Not a good place to be.

A kick-ass military would require major capital investments and my consideration that Canada should develop a nuclear capability is in consideration of this. A single fleet carrier would cost about CDN$5 billion while for about CDN$1 billion a small nuclear programme could be implemented. Nukes are a cheaper way of Canada joining the big boys and I also think they'd be more in line with current social thinking in Canada.

A nuclear armed Canada without the ability to project conventional military power would clearly be a self-defensive posture. No one would feel threatened by Canada but no one would also want to mess with Canada.

Failing the development of nuclear weapons Canada needs three carrier battle fleets. One in both oceans and one in workup and in reserve.

In comparison the US currently fields twelve fleet carriers (with one more carrier in training service that can move to active duty), twenty four cruisers, forty-four destroyers, and thirty frigates to Canada's four destroyers and twelve frigates. The four destroyers are past their expected service life and are still in service as there are no new destroyers yet funded.

Sixteen ships of the line to defend the world's largest coastline. And four of those are over thirty years old and overdue for retirement or stem-to-stern refit.

The US military is charged with being able to defend the United States, its territories, its foreign bases, AND to simultaneuosly conduct two major wars. Right now we're hurting on that second major war capability and you'll shortly hear about that in your news.

I'm just saying that Canada should be able to absolutely defend Canada.

Right now it cannot.

If Canada had a serious military capability I doubt there'd be so much consternation on this site about the USA as the USA would not be so relevant and pressing a matter of concern.

Were I to develop a military policy for Canada it would be as follows:

"To defend with certainty the vast Provinces and Territories of Canada with the ability to defeat any aggressor and then to bring the battle to the aggressor."

I'd start by asking my military leaders:

"So, if Canada were attacked by the USA what would we do? What are we capable of?"

Right now the options are surrender or die.

If there's ever a coup in the USA and we get some maniac in charge who has a jones for really good beer then Canada will be in trouble.

The USA is your friend but a good plan would include "what if?" in it and then prepare for that.

If Canada were capable of blunting an attack by the USA then the list of nations willing to mess with Canada would shrink preciptously.

Right now the Canadian Navy couldn't even blunt ONE American battle group.

I guess I'd like to see a strong Canada if only to one day hear that a US, UK, or French Admiral uttered the words:

"Thank GOD the Canadians are here now!"

The USA is safer if Canada is stronger. I hope you see my point here.

   

Not arguing with you there...



Who said I dont like or trust the USA....Your right it is.



What Chinese aggression to Canada? Who ever said their will be Chinese agression to Canada? Why do you keep playing out these scenarios? They prove nothing. What does Canada care whose in the White House concerning Canadian soveriegnty and defence? They only DO care if it impeeds Canadian soveriegnty.



Thats your opinion, not fact. Your just like a typical American claiming we need to depend on you...your opinion, not fact.



What foreign foe? I didnt know Canada had any foes to strike. And again, that is your opinion, not FACT.


Tell me, what is the current social thinking in Canada?


Yes, lets go nuclear. We obviously need the defence from all these foes that want to attack Canada and not the U.S. While were at it, lets have every single nation on the planet have nuclear weapons to "defend" themselves so nobody messes with them.


Thats wonderful, hardly relevent to Canadas defence.



This site is about Canadian politics, events, history, and sure military, not about what Americans think about our military and what SHOULD be done about it and its only a pressing matter or concern because you make it out to be.

The rest of your babble is just your hypothetical opinion and not fact. To save you your trouble, Im not disputing Canada needs a more powerful military but your paranoia about all these foes attacking isnt really a reason to do so. I understand you want to have a powerful Canadian military and it might concern you about its weakness but thats hardly your primary concern now is it? It would be like me going on to an American forum and telling them the benefits of not going world wide and sticking their noses in others business... I dont think I would get a good reception dont you think? Your reason of thinking is that you want Canada to be LIKE the U.S which is what (most) Canadians DONT want. That is why we are different is it not? As well all this Bush propaganda is hardly relevant to the issue of Denmark and the small area included.

   

Previous  1 ... 6  7  8  9  10  11  12  13  Next