NationStates Jolt Archive

http://www.canoe.ca/NewsStand/Columnists/Calgary/Ezra_Levant/2005/01/02/805460.html

Not being a Canadian, it sounds silly that Canada spends money on armed forces at all. But to spend the money, and not be able to do anything at all except stand there wringing your hands...

I'm not making the argument that Canada needs any armed forces - quite the contrary. But it shouldn't waste the time sending troops overseas, either, if it can't support them in any way other than to ask for someone else to help.

Nice post.

I esp enjoyed the article, it is fun to know that we will probably still be hated over there, even after we help rebuild their infrastructures (actually build as they hadn't had decent ones anyway). But I guess you're damned if you do and damned if you don't.

This article is from the Calgary Sun you dummies. This guys a torrie hack, he clearly cares less about the disaster in comparison to taking shots at the gritts.

Ok, he's a Tory hack. Does that change the impotent nature of the Canadian armed forces, their incredibly rotten equipment, and their complete inability to do anything at all, including helping out a bit in a peaceful situation?

It doesn't change the facts on the ground, now does it? Would it make the rusty submarine problem less of a problem if this was written by a liberal? Would it make it suddenly possible for Canadian troops to assist overseas in a competent and full manner if this was written by a liberal?

I think not. I'd rather discuss the situation, and what to do about it, than discuss whether the article was written by one hack or another. It doesn't change the facts at all.

This article is from the Calgary Sun you dummies. This guys a torrie hack, he clearly cares less about the disaster in comparison to taking shots at the gritts.

First off, nice Equivocation and Guilt by Association there, Queensland.

Now, John's absolutely correct. Canada's got a long history of cutting defence spending: we did it after WWI. After World War Two, a war in which Canada earned a place in the international community as a middle power for its actions clearing Coastal ports to ease growing supply lines (albiet a humble task in comparrison with other Allies), the Federal Government, under the leadership of the ever-so-dilusional Mackenzie King, made drastic cut backs to the forces, causing them to all but collapse. They did not recieve adequate attention again until the Korean war, when Canada finally realized that its credibility in NATO was only tangable insofar as their ability to put boots on the ground.

That problem exists today. The White Paper on Defense is a document that outlines the Government's goals for the armed forces. The last time it was updated was in 1994, at which time the Liberal Government under Chretien put forth a plan to expand the forces and bring them back up to par. Yet, the Liberals have failed to do so in the past decade.

As far as the Author of this artcle's political leanings are concerned, John's absolutely correct--its totally irrelevant which party he supports. Yes, its no secret that the Conservatives support increased military spending in order to rejuvinate the forces (I remind everyone at this point that our Armed Forces do not even meet NATO standards--once again we are failing our allies.) However, the Liberals, too, have clearly recognized the need for increased spending--they did that ten years ago, they've just yet to do anything about it.

Regardless of what party you support, the fact remains that our forces are under equipped, and that is shameful. We have a responsibility to the men and women of our forces to supply them with Helicopters that won't crash, Submarines that do not spontaineously combust, jeeps that don't blow up, and transportation that can actually get them where they are needed--the article points out exactly that, our RAPID deployment force cannot even do its job because it CAN'T get there.

Clearly, the Author DOES care about the disaster--he is outraged because Canada should be doing everything it can to bring aid to these people, but isnt doing so because of its indifference to the pitiful condition of our forces and their needs.

Unlike the US, which can arbitrarily go and borrow the hell out of the world to support deficit spending, Canada seems to run into the brick wall of reality.

Maybe someone should run on a platform of not passing any new laws except some that abolish certain government programs.

Like the Canadian military, for starters.

ph33r our chair-force!

I'm sure that everother nation has twice the fatalities per capa as a result of military machine malfunction. What would be the purpose of haveing a military when theres no conflicts canada is currently engaged in. And whoever was saying what a perfect situation canadas military was in at the end of ww2....you do realize that almost all of canadas equipment was sold used to us by the british, seems alot like how it works today. Why not invest that money that you want to go to the military in civil government units that can cover our problems before we worry about someone elses.

i think i would rather see my tax dollars go towards improving life here than building a military.

and perhaps we can't send more people because we're already got a bunch of people out in afghanistan preserving order... remember the place that the u.s. has all but forgotten about in favour of attacking countries that have nothing to do with terrorism?

Mr.Browning, after reading a number of your posts today, I have discovered that you have a knack of annoying me. Thank you, my wife held that title long enough.

We are who we are, we do what we do,
if it don't make you happy, tough doggy-do.

We are maple syrup, we are beavers
ain't got no Trumps or Ward Cleavers.

We are hockey, and Celine Dion
and lotsa snow that you can pee on.

We are peace and love and all that crap,
we seldom choke the dove, and we'd never invade Iraq.

Our army is small, which says it all,
we'll help the world and leave the fightin' to y'all.

Unlike the US, which can arbitrarily go and borrow the hell out of the world to support deficit spending, Canada seems to run into the brick wall of reality.

Maybe someone should run on a platform of not passing any new laws except some that abolish certain government programs.

Like the Canadian military, for starters.

Do we dare take one last step and complete the puss-ification process of a once strong country? I'm sure somewhere, someone is having a wet dream at the prospect...

Good plan. Lets abolish the military, just like a weak kneed government abolished the Canadian Airborne Regiment. That will go over well. Lets leave the very same people who know how to conduct war out to dry, and make them unemployed, bitter and even more angry toward government.

Do we dare take one last step and complete the puss-ification process of a once strong country? I'm sure somewhere, someone is having a wet dream at the prospect...

Good plan. Lets abolish the military, just like a weak kneed government abolished the Canadian Airborne Regiment. That will go over well. Lets leave the very same people who know how to conduct war out to dry, and make them unemployed, bitter and even more angry toward government.

Why do you assume the only way to have a strong country is through a military force? Now, I don't support disbanding the military either but Canada just isn't one of those gung-ho, shoot 'em all countries.

Maybe if we focus on fixing the homeland problems first (health care, social security, the deficit) we'll be able to create a stronger economy and therefore a larger budget for the gov't to work with. From there, we can put more money into the military.

We do have some problems but we can't fix them right away.

Do we dare take one last step and complete the puss-ification process of a once strong country? I'm sure somewhere, someone is having a wet dream at the prospect...

Good plan. Lets abolish the military, just like a weak kneed government abolished the Canadian Airborne Regiment. That will go over well. Lets leave the very same people who know how to conduct war out to dry, and make them unemployed, bitter and even more angry toward government.

Then start spending the money you don't have.

To Dakini: That's quite enough--you made your point about Afghanistan, and you were doing just fine--you didn't need to go make a stab at the Americans.

To New Jeffhodia: Social welfare programs do not help our economy--welfare, higher minimum wage laws, these create higher unemployment, and hurt the economy. Health care is definately something that needs fixing, though. And no one is assuming that the only way to have a strong country is in military force--there are many degrees of strength--Economically, Education, Socially, Politically, and yes, militarily. A Nation must excell at all of these in order to be truly considered strong.

To Gawdly: What are you, a moron? Why has Mr. Browning annoyed you? Because he's an American who has the audacity to point out to Canadians where their country is flawed? Oh, heaven forbid that Americans tell Canadians off--I mean, we can do it to them, because we're not trigger happy gun slingers, right? ...We're the peaceful ones in the world neighbourhood, after all--its our right to critisize the Americans--but god help them if they try to do it to us!!!---grow up. That, and you've now managed to insult Canadians, and myself as a Canadian, at your abhorent and childish little poem--if you're going to argue, ARGUE--don't act like a child.

To Queensland: "I'm sure that everother nation has twice the fatalities per capa as a result of military machine malfunction. What would be the purpose of haveing a military when theres no conflicts canada is currently engaged in. And whoever was saying what a perfect situation canadas military was in at the end of ww2....you do realize that almost all of canadas equipment was sold used to us by the british, seems alot like how it works today. Why not invest that money that you want to go to the military in civil government units that can cover our problems before we worry about someone elses."

---That was me who was reffering to WW2. And, at the outset of the war, Canada used its OWN equipment, the Ross Rifle from WWI, which was later (thankfully) replaced by British Lee-Enfield rifles and equipment--our pride almost caused us to be stuck with those shitty Ross rifles, which would have cost us many more lives. I didn't say that Canada's military was in a "perfect situation"--I said CANADA as a WORLD PLAYER was in a great situation as a middle power, but we lost credibility because we let our forces fall apart.

--Also, you said "What would be the purpose of having a military when there are no conflicts canada is currently engaged in."--no current engagements, eh? How's this for starters:

--Operations Athena (1003 personnel) and Accrus (1 person) in Afganistan
--Cyprus (since 1964)
-- Operation Danaca in The Golan Heights (193 people)
--Operation Safari in Sudan (4 people)
--Operation Hamlet in the Carribean (Haiti) (2 people)
--Operation Crocodile in the Congo (8 people)
--Operations Snowgoose in Cyprus (1 person)
--Op. Altair in the Persian Gulf (1 person)
--Operation Foundation in Florida (no clue why--maybe as a 3rd party peacekeeper in case they messed up the election again) (6 people)
--Op. Boreas in Bosnia-Herzegovina (69 people)
--Op. Bronze in Bosnia-Herzegovina (14 people)
--Op. Calumet in Sinai (28 people)
--Op. Jade in Jerusalem (8 people)
--Op. Reptile in Sierra Leone (5 people)
--Op. Sculpture in Sierra Leone (8 people)
--Op. Iolaus in Iraq (1 person...not really a deployment since we're not officialy involved..probably an observer or something)

and: "On 3 Jan 05, the Minister of National Defence announced that the DART will begin deploying to Ampara, Sri Lanka, on Thursday, 6 January 2005. Initially, four charter Antonov-125 flights from 8 Wing Trenton will transport the DART equipment into Colombo, Sri Lanka." --yes, Antonov is Russian, just as we said earlier...everyone else has got to cart us around, its pathetic.

--All of the above are CURRENT Canadian forces deployments--as in, our forces are in those places TODAY--be it on peacekeeping/making missions, policing (such as with OP Athena and Accrus in Afghanistan). So, what was that? No current engagements of the Canadian forces? I dont know, I'd say we're pretty well spread around, wouldn't you? Now, we just need to support those troops with the proper equipment...

--Oh, and, btw, all the above information was pulled directly from this website: www.forces.gc.ca --yes, that's right--the Canadian Armed Forces website...quite publically availiable information...maybe you'd want to investigate these things before you make claims again.

Why do you assume the only way to have a strong country is through a military force? Now, I don't support disbanding the military either but Canada just isn't one of those gung-ho, shoot 'em all countries.

Maybe if we focus on fixing the homeland problems first (health care, social security, the deficit) we'll be able to create a stronger economy and therefore a larger budget for the gov't to work with. From there, we can put more money into the military.

We do have some problems but we can't fix them right away.

And one more thing: I'm not arguing that Canada invest in an armed force capable of large operations such as the United States or Britain. I'm merely saying that we need to fund our current forces adequetly enough so that they can work in safer conditions--a soldier should only have to worry about being killed from one source-the enemy, not his own equipment.

Our military is a piece of shit, plain and simple. The Liberals have given up funded much on it and so we should not be expected to be very relevent in this way on the world stage. Personally, Canada spends too much on all these social programs and not enough on things like health care, the military, trade, etc. I know I'll get butchered for that last sentence but bring 'em on!

Having known people who were in the military and having considered a career in our armed forces (still do sometimes) I have to defend out armed forces - they do a lot with what they are given. The problem with our armed forces is that the government is making poor decisions when it comes to spending the military budget. I had a professor at university who was in the military and he told us that in the war games against the US the Canadians usually wins because we have far superior training, and some of that comes from our lack of supplies. Canadian soldiers cannot mistreat their rifles in excercises (drop or drag them) because we cannot really replace them, however their American counterparts apparently do. JTF2 is one of the most elite units in the world and DART is a very good unit. We have some very good things (the personnel carriers you see in Black Hawk Down at the end when the UN comes to pick up the marines are Canadian and apparently awesome). Someone needs to wake up parliment and the military hierarchy and let them know where to spend the money (we don't need the subs, we need to replace the seahawks NOW).

Having known people who were in the military and having considered a career in our armed forces (still do sometimes) I have to defend out armed forces - they do a lot with what they are given.

Dont get me wrong--I have the utmost respect for the men and women of our National Forces--they do accomplish a great deal for what they've got in equipment. And yes, they are trained very well--above all, we can be ever proud of the professionalism exhibited in our Personnel.

Why do you assume the only way to have a strong country is through a military force? Now, I don't support disbanding the military either but Canada just isn't one of those gung-ho, shoot 'em all countries.

Maybe if we focus on fixing the homeland problems first (health care, social security, the deficit) we'll be able to create a stronger economy and therefore a larger budget for the gov't to work with. From there, we can put more money into the military.

We do have some problems but we can't fix them right away.

Fix health care? The politicians have been arguing about how to fix health care for decades. Its convenient for them to have it as an issue.

Want to fix health care? Allow for a mixed system of public and private services. Waiting months and months for routine problems when if you could pay, would be rectified much sooner, is an affront to not only our health care system, but our health.

And to Browning, spending money we don't have? We have the money, just the government chooses to pour it into public Health Care, which makes up for our largest piece of the budget pie. Can't wait to pay more as the baby boomers go into retirement.

And yes Traejen, your professor is correct. Canadian personnel have won a good deal of war games and exercises, from top gun honors to tankers to infanteers.

Our government does not have its priorities straight with regards to spending. I believe the vehicle you are referring to is similar to the Coyote .. a LAV, or what the Americans have, the Stryker. It has its flaws no doubt, Id prefer the M113 Gavin for APC duties.

JTF2 is still a 'junior' elite on the SOF scene. Getting there thoug. Seahawks .. well now I'm depressed.

http://www.cbc.ca/story/canada/national/2005/01/04/newdart-050104.html

What a difference one day and a non-Tory website will make, eh Browning?

The Sun exists for sports scores and semi-nude swimsuit models.

Get a grip.

DT.


http://www.canoe.ca/NewsStand/Columnists/Calgary/Ezra_Levant/2005/01/02/805460.html

Not being a Canadian, it sounds silly that Canada spends money on armed forces at all. But to spend the money, and not be able to do anything at all except stand there wringing your hands...

I'm not making the argument that Canada needs any armed forces - quite the contrary. But it shouldn't waste the time sending troops overseas, either, if it can't support them in any way other than to ask for someone else to help.

--Operations Athena (1003 personnel) and Accrus (1 person) in Afganistan
--Cyprus (since 1964)
-- Operation Danaca in The Golan Heights (193 people)
--Operation Safari in Sudan (4 people)
--Operation Hamlet in the Carribean (Haiti) (2 people)
--Operation Crocodile in the Congo (8 people)
--Operations Snowgoose in Cyprus (1 person)
--Op. Altair in the Persian Gulf (1 person)
--Operation Foundation in Florida (no clue why--maybe as a 3rd party peacekeeper in case they messed up the election again) (6 people)
--Op. Boreas in Bosnia-Herzegovina (69 people)
--Op. Bronze in Bosnia-Herzegovina (14 people)
--Op. Calumet in Sinai (28 people)
--Op. Jade in Jerusalem (8 people)
--Op. Reptile in Sierra Leone (5 people)
--Op. Sculpture in Sierra Leone (8 people)
--Op. Iolaus in Iraq (1 person...not really a deployment since we're not officialy involved..probably an observer or something)


Well duhhh. What i meant is canada is not engaged in warfare right now, our forces are military police keeping the peace, not makeing the peace.I don't have to look up facts to know that police units don't need tanks and helcpters and jet fighters, the need pritty much what they've got, anything else would be for bragging rights only.

Our military is a piece of shit, plain and simple. The Liberals have given up funded much on it and so we should not be expected to be very relevent in this way on the world stage. Personally, Canada spends too much on all these social programs and not enough on things like health care, the military, trade, etc. I know I'll get butchered for that last sentence but bring 'em on!

Yeah damn social programs! lets abandon society !

Well duhhh. What i meant is canada is not engaged in warfare right now, our forces are military police keeping the peace, not makeing the peace.I don't have to look up facts to know that police units don't need tanks and helcpters and jet fighters, the need pritty much what they've got, anything else would be for bragging rights only.

The point is that we are committed to these area, but can do NO MORE than mere policing roles. As such, we are letting our allies down. We cannot afford to send out troops there in large enough numbers to have a siginificant role; we cannot equip enough troops to play a significant role; we're not even sending troops to most of these places. 1 person? 5 people? 8? Rest assured, those are Officers, Medics, Engineers, Logistics people, observers--not troops for policing. Canada cannot make any adequate committments to any region.

Take DART (the Disaster Assistance Relief Team)--formed in 1996, these boys were supposed to be in an affected area FIRST, before ANY international aid groups arrived. Great job, Canada--you're arriving amoung the last of the help. Almost TWO weeks after the Tsunami hit. These guys were designed so that they could have been there by the 28th of December--IF Canada had the appropriate cargo transports.

And how dare you say that our troops, even on missions of policing and peacekeeping, do not need proper equipment. I JUST said in the last post that I dont think we should invest in big guns and 'big bang' weapons. (and on another note, I would never support our government buying Tanks--tanks are outdated weapons whose time is running short. I think we need Cargo Planes, Helicopters (some Black Hawks wouldn't be bad)--and we need to bring back the Airborne Regiment.) What I said is that we need to properly equip those troops who are already lacking whatthey need. Think back to our first deployments to Afghanistan...the fact that we didn't have the proper camoflage is just embarrassing. The fact that it took our Government months to get new uniforms to our troops is just pathetic. Equipment does not necessarily mean weapons. As I said--it means vehicles that do not endanger our soldiers' lives, the proper uniforms for the terrain they're in, armour, packs, and the ability TO deploy in large enough numbers to contribute to our allies with more than a single Officer.

I find it fascinating that Fairfax County, Virginia, their police department sent more people to Bosnia, Iraq, (not Afghanistan) and other world hot spots to serve as police than Canada sent troops. They also send their special rescue team to earthquake and tsunami locations, and have their own de-mining team.

For deployments of less than 50 people at a shot, they seem, as a mere county in the US, to do more than Canada.

Maybe they have the money to do that because Fairfax County doesn't waste money on rusted submarines and 30 year old helicopters and outdated castoff frigates from the UK.

I find it fascinating that Fairfax County, Virginia, their police department sent more people to Bosnia, Iraq, (not Afghanistan) and other world hot spots to serve as police than Canada sent troops. They also send their special rescue team to earthquake and tsunami locations, and have their own de-mining team.

For deployments of less than 50 people at a shot, they seem, as a mere county in the US, to do more than Canada.

Maybe they have the money to do that because Fairfax County doesn't waste money on rusted submarines and 30 year old helicopters and outdated castoff frigates from the UK.
Ok, John Browning, you're starting to annoy me too. These submarines you speak of were bought because the US insisted that we buy them. They had their reasons and made subtle hint that there would be repercussions if we didn't buy them.

For the helicopters, politics got in the way (still does). There's nothing we can do but roll our eyes at the Liberals and Tories who want their little friends in on the action.

And, despite being ill-equipped, Canadian soldier still put their live on the line in various parts of the globe in conflicts that has nothing to do with them. I would ask that you show some respect.

Also, it would help if the US didn't drop bombs on them in friendly fire incident.

Our military is a piece of shit, plain and simple. The Liberals have given up funded much on it and so we should not be expected to be very relevent in this way on the world stage. Personally, Canada spends too much on all these social programs and not enough on things like health care, the military, trade, etc. I know I'll get butchered for that last sentence but bring 'em on!

Point of interest: Healthcare IS a social program.

I think that *all* of the sales programs - from the US selling fighters and junk to the UK selling ships and junk are scams - the Canadians need to reapprise the actual mission of their very limited armed forces.

There are far too few soldiers, with a severely limited logistical support system.

If I were Canada, I would get rid of all fighter aircraft and have a small group of military transport aircraft tailored to support overseas deployment of a group of approximately 1000 men and women.

1000, because that would be the total number of people in the Canadian Army. Which would have its mission tailored precisely for international missions.

I would get rid of the Canadian Navy.

Free Newfoundland!

You know, it's odd. Too often we hear American's complaining with the hilarious notion that we in Canada are only free because we live under the umbrella of their protection. It is rather refreshing to hear an American prompting us to become even more dependant.

Now, that being said, given that my cousin recently rotated back as part of the force (3,000+) that were in Kabul, the notion that we are inneffective is something that perhaps you might want to mention to your President. I'm sure he will take your expertise to heart and pull the Presidential Unit Citation that he awarded a month ago to the members of JTF2 for their aid in hunting down the Taliban and Al Qaeda in Afghanistan. You remember? Where a Canadian broke the world record for longest sniper kill that has stood since Vietnam?

Now, if your complaint is that Canadians are not currently in combat, do you also denigrate US troops not currently stationed in Iraq as being irrelevant and useless? All those pansies in Korea wasting government dollars and all that? Canada was the first country to sign up and go into combat at your side in Afghanistan. We still rotate troops in to meet commitments. And if GW hadn't decided to invade Iraq you wouldn't have any troops in combat either, however I doubt that you would use that as a reason to claim that you don't need a military anymore....

Frankly I agree about the subs. A couple of old diesels to patrol our shoreline was a token gesture at best and useless to boot. But a Navy is still needed, or at least folded into a stronger coast guard. We have territorial waters to protect from other countries who like to try and overfish them, we have drug interdiction, we have smugglers, etc. Coastal defense is still a neccessity so the "get rid of the navy" idea is garbage.

Oh yes, and we built our own frigates. The subs were used equipment, but the new members of the surface fleet are not.

But a job-order rapid deployment force of specialists IS what we need. We are never going to have an aircraft carrier, so the fighters are of limited deployability, but a few nice attack helos would be usefull to provide air cover, updating our tanks is also a priority, and some heavy-lift capability so that we can get them to where needed.

But 1000 men? not even close. That is barely a batallion and wouldn't even include support. Plus you need to be able to rotate troops.

I find it fascinating that Fairfax County, Virginia, their police department sent more people to Bosnia, Iraq, (not Afghanistan) and other world hot spots to serve as police than Canada sent troops. They also send their special rescue team to earthquake and tsunami locations, and have their own de-mining team.

For deployments of less than 50 people at a shot, they seem, as a mere county in the US, to do more than Canada.

Maybe they have the money to do that because Fairfax County doesn't waste money on rusted submarines and 30 year old helicopters and outdated castoff frigates from the UK.

I find it fascinating that American police forces actually think that they need a de-mining team!

And I especially find it fascinating that, according to you, they have exceeded the 40,000 Canadian's who served in Bosnia. Now THAT is one big-ass police force! Just how bad is the crime in Fairfax?


Of course. maybe they have the money to do that because they dont "waste" any money ensuring that poor people can recieve medical care in their county....

I think you need to re-read my posts. I'm not denigrating their use in combat or not in combat.

It's just that if I were a Canadian, I would be severely questioning the expenditure.

If you spend just enough money to keep them in uniforms, yet expect them to do more than that, you're fooling yourself.

Canadian forces seem to be incapable of projecting themselves without a great deal of US logistical and other support. I could agree on a large Coast Guard, but there's really no need for a navy that does global projection - it's not capable of doing it without support from US oilers.

I think you need to re-read my posts. I'm not denigrating their use in combat or not in combat.

It's just that if I were a Canadian, I would be severely questioning the expenditure.

If you spend just enough money to keep them in uniforms, yet expect them to do more than that, you're fooling yourself.

Canadian forces seem to be incapable of projecting themselves without a great deal of US logistical and other support. I could agree on a large Coast Guard, but there's really no need for a navy that does global projection - it's not capable of doing it without support from US oilers.

Well, that is certainly an issue of prioritization. Some upgrading has gone underway in regars to the new frigates and subs which I agree would have been better allocated to the ground forces. However the notion that they are only "kept in uniforms" is unneccessarily disparaging. The new Coyote recon vehicle was a great success in Afghanistan as it could go many places that the Bradley could not (The Bradley... what a cluster fuck THAT is!). So much so that we are now getting a number of overseas orders to equip other forces with it. The Leopard tanks upgrades have helped, but it is our lack of lift ability that keeps them home rendering them useless. They may not match an M1, but they would have handled the old Iraqi T-series tanks just find had we been engaged there.

It is the logistical chain that needs improving more than anything else. The ability to get what we have to where we need it to go. If we had not baught the subs and instead invested in a few C-5's and some smaller transport as well, then the force would be a much more effective entity.


I AM a Canadian and I DO question some expense allocations. Just as I'm sure that you do when you read about the miserable failure that your missile defense tests have proven, or any time you see a picture of a Bradley....


Happy?

I guess you don't read the news about the PAC-3 tests, or the THEL, or the Airborne Laser, or the ABM version of the Standard missile. Standard, in particular, is extremely reliable and accurate as an ICBM interceptor. It's also deployed currently on ships in the Pacific, and is operational.

Even the GBI they're working on has a fairly good track record - for something that's experimental. Sure, it wouldn't stop hundreds of missiles, but if you have 100 missiles deployed (which is the plan), and North Korea only has a few missiles (let's say 10), then it only has to be at least 10 percent effective.

And that's after the North Korean missiles pass over the PAC-3 sites in South Korea, and over the ships mounting Standard in the Pacific.

It's my bet that the combination of different systems would be very effective, even if they used decoys. It's still more than enough shots to hit all the real and fake targets.

I would add that while the Bradley isn't a good vehicle for very high elevation mountains, it certainly does quite well elsewhere.

It's too heavy, though. The Striker is larger and more sophisticated than the standard LAV, but quite susceptible to RPG fire, as is the Coyote.

Only certain types of RPG from certain angles have a chance at hurting a Bradley. So the weight thing is a tradeoff. Most US armored vehicles have crew survivability as the number one priority.

I guess you don't read the news about the PAC-3 tests, or the THEL, or the Airborne Laser, or the ABM version of the Standard missile. Standard, in particular, is extremely reliable and accurate as an ICBM interceptor. It's also deployed currently on ships in the Pacific, and is operational.

Even the GBI they're working on has a fairly good track record - for something that's experimental. Sure, it wouldn't stop hundreds of missiles, but if you have 100 missiles deployed (which is the plan), and North Korea only has a few missiles (let's say 10), then it only has to be at least 10 percent effective.

And that's after the North Korean missiles pass over the PAC-3 sites in South Korea, and over the ships mounting Standard in the Pacific.

It's my bet that the combination of different systems would be very effective, even if they used decoys. It's still more than enough shots to hit all the real and fake targets.

Well, let's see. The Pac-3 is just an upgraded Patriot. We all remember that a the missile they lied about the first time around when it turned out that it never took out a single scud. Even if they DID fix it's aiming issues, it is far too short range to be effective against an ICBM rigged for airburst.

THEL is a nifty idea, but still experimental. It is also short-range, especially the mobile version.

And correct me if I'm wrong, but it was the Standard missle that failed ont he last test right? The one that has a 5-of-8 test scenario that only succeeded when they knew exactly where the target was and even (I think) put a transponder on the target?

Hey, I would love to know that the world had been made safe against ICBMs. I just don't think that you're anywhere close yet.

I would add that while the Bradley isn't a good vehicle for very high elevation mountains, it certainly does quite well elsewhere.

It's too heavy, though. The Striker is larger and more sophisticated than the standard LAV, but quite susceptible to RPG fire, as is the Coyote.

Only certain types of RPG from certain angles have a chance at hurting a Bradley. So the weight thing is a tradeoff. Most US armored vehicles have crew survivability as the number one priority.


Except that the surviveability of the Bradley was so bad in initial tests that the only solution they could come up with was to move most of the magazines and gas tanks to the OUTSIDE of the vehicle, because otherwise any shell fragment that penetrated had this nasty tendancy of causing the incineration of everyone inside.that was also what required the up-armouring of it that caused the wieght problems.

If you ever want to find out how the Bradley became what it is, see if you can find the movie The Pentagon Wars. The movie is definitely presented as a bit of a farce, but saddly it IS drawn from the actual development of this vehicle.

The point is that we are committed to these area, but can do NO MORE than mere policing roles. As such, we are letting our allies down. We cannot afford to send out troops there in large enough numbers to have a siginificant role; we cannot equip enough troops to play a significant role; we're not even sending troops to most of these places. 1 person? 5 people? 8? Rest assured, those are Officers, Medics, Engineers, Logistics people, observers--not troops for policing. Canada cannot make any adequate committments to any region.

Take DART (the Disaster Assistance Relief Team)--formed in 1996, these boys were supposed to be in an affected area FIRST, before ANY international aid groups arrived. Great job, Canada--you're arriving amoung the last of the help. Almost TWO weeks after the Tsunami hit. These guys were designed so that they could have been there by the 28th of December--IF Canada had the appropriate cargo transports.

And how dare you say that our troops, even on missions of policing and peacekeeping, do not need proper equipment. I JUST said in the last post that I dont think we should invest in big guns and 'big bang' weapons. (and on another note, I would never support our government buying Tanks--tanks are outdated weapons whose time is running short. I think we need Cargo Planes, Helicopters (some Black Hawks wouldn't be bad)--and we need to bring back the Airborne Regiment.) What I said is that we need to properly equip those troops who are already lacking whatthey need. Think back to our first deployments to Afghanistan...the fact that we didn't have the proper camoflage is just embarrassing. The fact that it took our Government months to get new uniforms to our troops is just pathetic. Equipment does not necessarily mean weapons. As I said--it means vehicles that do not endanger our soldiers' lives, the proper uniforms for the terrain they're in, armour, packs, and the ability TO deploy in large enough numbers to contribute to our allies with more than a single Officer.

OHHHH, I SEE! We got mixed up here. I was thinking our military was for keepin the peace, when you were talking about occupying. I said they didn't need the proper equipment ? When every other nation is spending money to destroy and break things, how about we spend money to fix things. Buy construction equipment instead of helecopters, invest in helping people of that nation,help themselves.

Help people help themselves! we could spend billions on military but when its time to leave the country we are aiding, how will they take responsability if they don't know how or what to do. Canada kicking terrorist ass or fixing things in the wave damaged areas is pointless if the people who live in these trouble areas don't know how to prevent these issues themselves.

OHHHH, I SEE! We got mixed up here. I was thinking our military was for keepin the peace, when you were talking about occupying. I said they didn't need the proper equipment ? When every other nation is spending money to destroy and break things, how about we spend money to fix things. Buy construction equipment instead of helecopters, invest in helping people of that nation,help themselves.

...You know, I'm getting tired of this quickly. I continue to make arguments and now you just went and did a Straw Man--I did NOT say ANYTHING about occupying ANYONE. And I believe you, sir, possess misconceptions of what our Armed Forces are for. Canada's peacekeeping role has changed immensely over the past 50 years. The ideal established by Pearson after the Suez is long gone-today, Canada's role, as demonstrated in Afghanistan, Rwanda, and Sudan, is PeaceMAKING as well as peacekeeping--going into areas that are currently in conflict and creating peace, and THEN provide aid--guess what? To do that, our forces need to get dirty sometimes. The funny thing about peaceKEEPING is that it presupposes an existing peace, like a cease-fire or something. The problem is, in areas like Afghanistan, the Congo, Sierra Lionne, and Sudan, this just is not the case. In those situations, you need to make pease by putting an end to the fighting--you can't do that with nothing but your uniform.

Gen. Lewis MacKenzie wrote an editorial for the National Post on November 23rd of 2004. In it he argues quite correctly that Peacemaking is NOT Social Work, despite the misconceptions of today's Canadians. In it he, like myself, agrees with what you said that there must be efforts put forth towards the rebuilding of afflicted areas. However, I believe he's more on the ball as to HOW to accomplish this:

"Civilian personnel, well trained and educated in essential nation-building skills, such as judges, police officials, social workers and civil servants, have ot be standing by to assist in rebuilding socities once the soldiers are successful in their primary task, which is to STOP the killing. Soldiers are NOT social workers with guns. Both disciplines are important, but both will suffer if combined in the same individuals."

In this, he argues against former recommendations made by Maj. Gen. Romeo Dallaire, that "soldiers who can both make peace and build civil society intervene in failed states were timely and appropriate". MacKenzie's quite correct. A soldier is trained for one purpose-to fight. You can like that or not, but that's a soldier's job. Not to hand out food--that can be left to civilians.

Gen. MacKenzie continues by addressing the current crisis in Sudan. To fill you in, in Sudan, there are killings being perpetrated by Sudanese-backed militias. Now, some would argue that these killings amount to Genocide, though the UN Security Council is still debating what to call it. But, regardless of the definitions, this is going on right now in Sudan. Gen. MacKenzie argues that

"the important and simple task in Sudan is to stop the killing. But the soldiers who can do that have not been dispatched. Instead, aid agencies have been trying to stitch together the shredded social fabric in Darfur under atrocious and dangerous conditions. If peacemakers are dispatched to stop the killing, the intervening soldiers' role should be restricted to providing security to the innocents inthe Darfur Region...Once security is assured, aid agencies can do what they are best at while diplomacy can continue without the shadow of a daily body count of dead women and children."

Now, in 1994, in Rwanda, the UN peacekeeping mission is commonly viewed as a failure. This is true. Why? Because General Romeo Dallaire, the UN C.O (Commanding Officer) during the UN mission in Rwanda, was not adequately supplied. As Gen. MacKenzie points out, Gen. Dallaire "did not need a force led by officers educated in anthropology, psychology or philosophy who "understood" the sensitivities of what was going on in Rwanda, as he as more recently suggested. He needed leaders conventionally trained in the application of deadly force to stop the killing. Once that had been achieved and 800,000 lives saved, the nation-builders could have safely come in and started the rebuilding process."

Why? Because 'educated' officers are not soldiers. Dallaire needed to stop the Genocide--he did not have what he needed. He himself said that had he been given 5000 professional soldiers, properly equipped, he could have stopped the atrocities. He's probably right. Also, do not kid yourself for an instant. Officers educated in Anthropology and Philosophy do NOT "understand", COULD NOT understand ANYTHING they were about to experience--how could anyone be prepared for what happened in Rwanda? The fact is that Dallaire's mandate from the UN was to "establish an atmosphere of security"--as always, the UN delivered an incredibly ambiguous mandate--and yes, that included nation-building and aid relief. However, aid could ONLY have been effective had the UN been able to stiffle the killings--it was not, because it was not willing to use force to do so.

Canada, as part of the UN, must recognize this as well--in war-torn areas, in order to solve the problems one must first create a situation of peace--and one must be willing to use reasonable force to do this. Only once this has been accomplished can the peace *keeping* begin--the nation building, etc. Peace Making does NOT mean occupation--it would not have meant occupation in Rwanda--it would not mean occupation in Sudan. It means putting an end to the killing, killing being conducted by para militants, rebels, militias, and then continuing to provide security for aid workers and civilians.


It's too heavy, though. The Striker is larger and more sophisticated than the standard LAV, but quite susceptible to RPG fire, as is the Coyote.


--Um, but the latest developments in personal missle technologies have made most tanks obsolete. Though, I'll lose some credability here because I can't for the life of me think of the name of the missle--but there is a shoulder-mounted missle capable of taking the turret off an M1 Abrams, I just dont know what its called.


Ok, John Browning, you're starting to annoy me too. These submarines you speak of were bought because the US insisted that we buy them. They had their reasons and made subtle hint that there would be repercussions if we didn't buy them.

--You make it sound like the Diesal Subs like the HMCS Chicouttami were purchased from the United States--just to clarify (I'm not implying you dont know better, its just to clarify to those here who may not know)--Canada purchased its 4 Diesal subs from the UK. Now, where I have to question you, Canuck, is when you imply that the US pressured us into buying them, indeed, you make it sound as if they bullied us into it--where on earth did you get that from? Why would the United States threaten us with repercussions if we did not purchase British Subs? What good does that serve them?

--You make it sound like the Diesal Subs like the HMCS Chicouttami were purchased from the United States--just to clarify (I'm not implying you dont know better, its just to clarify to those here who may not know)--Canada purchased its 4 Diesal subs from the UK. Now, where I have to question you, Canuck, is when you imply that the US pressured us into buying them, indeed, you make it sound as if they bullied us into it--where on earth did you get that from? Why would the United States threaten us with repercussions if we did not purchase British Subs? What good does that serve them?

I read it in the Globe and Mail, the National Post, the Montreal Gazette and La Presse. Basically, the US wanted Canada to buy them to test their own subs in wargames and did not want to buy them themselves.

As for threats, it was something about not sharing information about the Altlantic because we didn't have subs. It didn't raise a debate but it was in the papers.

...You know, I'm getting tired of this quickly. I continue to make arguments and now you just went and did a Straw Man--I did NOT say ANYTHING about occupying ANYONE. And I believe you, sir, possess misconceptions of what our Armed Forces are for. Canada's peacekeeping role has changed immensely over the past 50 years. The ideal established by Pearson after the Suez is long gone-today, Canada's role, as demonstrated in Afghanistan, Rwanda, and Sudan, is PeaceMAKING as well as peacekeeping--going into areas that are currently in conflict and creating peace, and THEN provide aid--guess what? To do that, our forces need to get dirty sometimes. The funny thing about peaceKEEPING is that it presupposes an existing peace, like a cease-fire or something. The problem is, in areas like Afghanistan, the Congo, Sierra Lionne, and Sudan, this just is not the case. In those situations, you need to make pease by putting an end to the fighting--you can't do that with nothing but your uniform.

Gen. Lewis MacKenzie wrote an editorial for the National Post on November 23rd of 2004. In it he argues quite correctly that Peacemaking is NOT Social Work, despite the misconceptions of today's Canadians. In it he, like myself, agrees with what you said that there must be efforts put forth towards the rebuilding of afflicted areas. However, I believe he's more on the ball as to HOW to accomplish this:

"Civilian personnel, well trained and educated in essential nation-building skills, such as judges, police officials, social workers and civil servants, have ot be standing by to assist in rebuilding socities once the soldiers are successful in their primary task, which is to STOP the killing. Soldiers are NOT social workers with guns. Both disciplines are important, but both will suffer if combined in the same individuals."

In this, he argues against former recommendations made by Maj. Gen. Romeo Dallaire, that "soldiers who can both make peace and build civil society intervene in failed states were timely and appropriate". MacKenzie's quite correct. A soldier is trained for one purpose-to fight. You can like that or not, but that's a soldier's job. Not to hand out food--that can be left to civilians.

Gen. MacKenzie continues by addressing the current crisis in Sudan. To fill you in, in Sudan, there are killings being perpetrated by Sudanese-backed militias. Now, some would argue that these killings amount to Genocide, though the UN Security Council is still debating what to call it. But, regardless of the definitions, this is going on right now in Sudan. Gen. MacKenzie argues that

"the important and simple task in Sudan is to stop the killing. But the soldiers who can do that have not been dispatched. Instead, aid agencies have been trying to stitch together the shredded social fabric in Darfur under atrocious and dangerous conditions. If peacemakers are dispatched to stop the killing, the intervening soldiers' role should be restricted to providing security to the innocents inthe Darfur Region...Once security is assured, aid agencies can do what they are best at while diplomacy can continue without the shadow of a daily body count of dead women and children."

Now, in 1994, in Rwanda, the UN peacekeeping mission is commonly viewed as a failure. This is true. Why? Because General Romeo Dallaire, the UN C.O (Commanding Officer) during the UN mission in Rwanda, was not adequately supplied. As Gen. MacKenzie points out, Gen. Dallaire "did not need a force led by officers educated in anthropology, psychology or philosophy who "understood" the sensitivities of what was going on in Rwanda, as he as more recently suggested. He needed leaders conventionally trained in the application of deadly force to stop the killing. Once that had been achieved and 800,000 lives saved, the nation-builders could have safely come in and started the rebuilding process."

Why? Because 'educated' officers are not soldiers. Dallaire needed to stop the Genocide--he did not have what he needed. He himself said that had he been given 5000 professional soldiers, properly equipped, he could have stopped the atrocities. He's probably right. Also, do not kid yourself for an instant. Officers educated in Anthropology and Philosophy do NOT "understand", COULD NOT understand ANYTHING they were about to experience--how could anyone be prepared for what happened in Rwanda? The fact is that Dallaire's mandate from the UN was to "establish an atmosphere of security"--as always, the UN delivered an incredibly ambiguous mandate--and yes, that included nation-building and aid relief. However, aid could ONLY have been effective had the UN been able to stiffle the killings--it was not, because it was not willing to use force to do so.

Canada, as part of the UN, must recognize this as well--in war-torn areas, in order to solve the problems one must first create a situation of peace--and one must be willing to use reasonable force to do this. Only once this has been accomplished can the peace *keeping* begin--the nation building, etc. Peace Making does NOT mean occupation--it would not have meant occupation in Rwanda--it would not mean occupation in Sudan. It means putting an end to the killing, killing being conducted by para militants, rebels, militias, and then continuing to provide security for aid workers and civilians.



--Um, but the latest developments in personal missle technologies have made most tanks obsolete. Though, I'll lose some credability here because I can't for the life of me think of the name of the missle--but there is a shoulder-mounted missle capable of taking the turret off an M1 Abrams, I just dont know what its called.



--You make it sound like the Diesal Subs like the HMCS Chicouttami were purchased from the United States--just to clarify (I'm not implying you dont know better, its just to clarify to those here who may not know)--Canada purchased its 4 Diesal subs from the UK. Now, where I have to question you, Canuck, is when you imply that the US pressured us into buying them, indeed, you make it sound as if they bullied us into it--where on earth did you get that from? Why would the United States threaten us with repercussions if we did not purchase British Subs? What good does that serve them?

Damn thats one long post you wrote, you obviously feel pasionetly about arming our military so they can kill people that noone cares about in some nation that noone cares about. Let the Rwandans, afgans, and slavs fix their own damn problems.

I read it in the Globe and Mail, the National Post, the Montreal Gazette and La Presse. Basically, the US wanted Canada to buy them to test their own subs in wargames and did not want to buy them themselves.

As for threats, it was something about not sharing information about the Altlantic because we didn't have subs. It didn't raise a debate but it was in the papers.

Alright then. It just confused me for a sec there.

Damn thats one long post you wrote, you obviously feel pasionetly about arming our military so they can kill people that noone cares about in some nation that noone cares about. Let the Rwandans, afgans, and slavs fix their own damn problems.


You know what...I give up on you. You're just not at all willing to even listen to what I've got to say--a trait very typical of the extreme left, I've noticed...I wonder if this explains why you refuse to argue with your own sound and valid arguments backed by solid evidence, but instead choose to simply throw unsubstantiated opinions and fallacies around.

Let them solve their own problems, eh? Yet, in your very first post on this thread you seem to make it rather clear that you feel we should be doing more to help the Tsunami relief:

"This article is from the Calgary Sun you dummies. This guys a torrie hack, he clearly cares less about the disaster in comparison to taking shots at the gritts. "--huh, imagine that, I didnt even notice that Red Herring the first time around...

So, shouldn't we, by your logic, just allow them to solve their own problems? Now, before you start implying that this is different, I'll point something out to you--Sri Lanka, where Canada's main focus has been for providing relief, is another of those nations currently rittled with such stife of the kind discussed by Gen. MacKenzie--the rebels there are responsible for devastating atrocities, murdering innocents, kidnapping children (which has been reported in the media just last night, it's happening right now, even in this situation of dire need--wow, what 'freedom fighthers'...exploiting the young and innocent, admidst the chaos of the Tsunami aftermath...how inspiring--

Anyway, my point is that Sri Lanka has this conflict going on in its borders. Now, sir, first you say that we should be concerned with the disaster, which I interpret as you believing we should indeed be helping in whatever way we can (I admit that this is an assumption on my part, but it is merely my interpretation of your words). Now, you say that we should let countries with in-fighting such as Rwanda, Sudan, Afgahnistan, and as I just said, Sri Lanka solve their own problems...would you not agree that you have just contradicted yourself, sir?

I'll tell you what--I'll spell it out for you. Yes, we should be sending relief and helping in the clean up and rebuilding in any way we can. But, in Sri Lanka, where Rebels are STILL targetting innocents and civilians, aid workers are NOT safe--well intentioned and performing noble tasks, yes--but doing so in the least safe of conditions. So, someone's got to provide protection for the families, aid workers, and children, to help maintain order while the area is rebuilt.

--And, as an aside--I'm insulted to have you imply that no one cares about Rwandese, or Afghans, Sudanese, Sri Lankans, Slavs, or anyone else afflicted by struggles. Well, clearly you don't, as you stated in your last post. I, for one, do care--that's why I am so passionate about making sure it gets done correctly to ensure the most successful missions. Gen. Lewis MacKenzie cares; Gen. Romeo Dallaire cares--the $US 4 Billion that has been raised over the past week in donations for relief work in reaction to the disaster, I believe, CLEARLY shows that the world DOES care very much about these people--your first post that I quoted above also states that YOU care about the people affected by the disaster, because you (wrongly) critized the author for "not caring" (when, in reality, he also does care, because he was upset that we WEREN'T sending DART).

I've had enough of this ridiculous excuse for a debate--I'm no longer willing to entertain your blatent attacks and twisting of my words to avoid making logical arguments in rebuttle.

Well, let's see. The Pac-3 is just an upgraded Patriot. We all remember that a the missile they lied about the first time around when it turned out that it never took out a single scud. Even if they DID fix it's aiming issues, it is far too short range to be effective against an ICBM rigged for airburst.


It's more than just an upgraded Patriot. It's a new missile and software and radar on the same launcher.

It hasn't missed in any tests. It's designed to hit boost-phase launches of ICBMs as well as any incoming within 60 miles, which is well within a terminal intercept. If it's sited in South Korea (as it is), it is able to hit anything that's leaving North Korea bound for Japan.


And correct me if I'm wrong, but it was the Standard missle that failed ont he last test right? The one that has a 5-of-8 test scenario that only succeeded when they knew exactly where the target was and even (I think) put a transponder on the target?


The missile that failed to launch on the last test (not failed in any other way - the booster failed to launch the missile) was not a Standard. It's the ground based interceptor, which is still under development.

The Standard has hit both cooperative and non-cooperative targets in tests, and successfully distinguished between decoys and real targets in tests. It has already been deployed and is operational aboard Aegis-class cruisers.

Hey, I would love to know that the world had been made safe against ICBMs. I just don't think that you're anywhere close yet.

Not safe against large scale attacks, but safe against a few missiles from North Korea is close or nearly there.

The Airborne Laser is being tested this year, and is scheduled to become operational at the end of the year. The weapon itself has been tested at full power, and at lower power, it has never missed targets. It's probably a better bet for boost phase intercept near North Korea than anything else (you can't use decoys during boost phase, and the booster is vulnerable during that time).

Damn thats one long post you wrote, you obviously feel pasionetly about arming our military so they can kill people that noone cares about in some nation that noone cares about. Let the Rwandans, afgans, and slavs fix their own damn problems.

How good of you to show your European colours. The rest of us in Canada believe in helping people who need help, and to do that, we need to be properly equipped.

Unless you like images, like that of Corporal Daniel Gunther, killed 1993 near Buci in Bosnia. A Canadian, killed by - car accident? Friendly fire? How about a rocket-propelled grenade, fired at him by one of the sides that he was supposed to protect. He was deliberately targeted by an anti-tank weapon.

I hope you have some shame, somewhere inside you. Our soldiers died to try and save other lives. Our soldiers are heroes.

You, sir, can go to hell.

Listen, the last time Canada tried to get a decent military and we built the best jet ever in history the Americans didn't want us to. Look up the Avro aero (http://archives.cbc.ca/IDD-1-75-275/science_technology/avro_arrow/) . What article might not tell you is that it was axed because the United States didn't want Canada being ahead of them, what the article might not tell you is all those Canadians went on to build the space shuttle. It probably won't tell you a lot.. what it should tell you is that Canada buckled to pressure from the USA. For that I will forever hate John Diefenbaker (I might add a freaking conservative)

"I am a Canadian,
free to speak without fear,
free to worship in my own way,
free to stand for what I think right,
free to oppose what I believe wrong,
or free to choose those
who shall govern my country.
This heritage of freedom
I pledge to uphold
for myself and all mankind."

From the Canadian Bill of Rights,
July 1, 1960. -John Diefenbaker

All I can say to that is bullshit!

You know what...I give up on you. You're just not at all willing to even listen to what I've got to say--a trait very typical of the extreme left, I've noticed...I wonder if this explains why you refuse to argue with your own sound and valid arguments backed by solid evidence, but instead choose to simply throw unsubstantiated opinions and fallacies around.

Let them solve their own problems, eh? Yet, in your very first post on this thread you seem to make it rather clear that you feel we should be doing more to help the Tsunami relief:

"This article is from the Calgary Sun you dummies. This guys a torrie hack, he clearly cares less about the disaster in comparison to taking shots at the gritts. "--huh, imagine that, I didnt even notice that Red Herring the first time around...

So, shouldn't we, by your logic, just allow them to solve their own problems? Now, before you start implying that this is different, I'll point something out to you--Sri Lanka, where Canada's main focus has been for providing relief, is another of those nations currently rittled with such stife of the kind discussed by Gen. MacKenzie--the rebels there are responsible for devastating atrocities, murdering innocents, kidnapping children (which has been reported in the media just last night, it's happening right now, even in this situation of dire need--wow, what 'freedom fighthers'...exploiting the young and innocent, admidst the chaos of the Tsunami aftermath...how inspiring--

Anyway, my point is that Sri Lanka has this conflict going on in its borders. Now, sir, first you say that we should be concerned with the disaster, which I interpret as you believing we should indeed be helping in whatever way we can (I admit that this is an assumption on my part, but it is merely my interpretation of your words). Now, you say that we should let countries with in-fighting such as Rwanda, Sudan, Afgahnistan, and as I just said, Sri Lanka solve their own problems...would you not agree that you have just contradicted yourself, sir?

I'll tell you what--I'll spell it out for you. Yes, we should be sending relief and helping in the clean up and rebuilding in any way we can. But, in Sri Lanka, where Rebels are STILL targetting innocents and civilians, aid workers are NOT safe--well intentioned and performing noble tasks, yes--but doing so in the least safe of conditions. So, someone's got to provide protection for the families, aid workers, and children, to help maintain order while the area is rebuilt.

--And, as an aside--I'm insulted to have you imply that no one cares about Rwandese, or Afghans, Sudanese, Sri Lankans, Slavs, or anyone else afflicted by struggles. Well, clearly you don't, as you stated in your last post. I, for one, do care--that's why I am so passionate about making sure it gets done correctly to ensure the most successful missions. Gen. Lewis MacKenzie cares; Gen. Romeo Dallaire cares--the $US 4 Billion that has been raised over the past week in donations for relief work in reaction to the disaster, I believe, CLEARLY shows that the world DOES care very much about these people--your first post that I quoted above also states that YOU care about the people affected by the disaster, because you (wrongly) critized the author for "not caring" (when, in reality, he also does care, because he was upset that we WEREN'T sending DART).

I've had enough of this ridiculous excuse for a debate--I'm no longer willing to entertain your blatent attacks and twisting of my words to avoid making logical arguments in rebuttle.

I'm a card carrying member of the Gritts is why i wrote the origonal post pointing out what a hack that report was. The reason my arguements are weak is that I really don't care about any other nation than Canada, and other than humanitarien causes, we have no need for a military.If there is to be military aid to other nations than lets go into an area where we're welcome, intead of killing all who fight our mandatory moral superiority issued by an occupiying military. Sure people will donate billions to help homeless people in Asia, we have homless people here in Canada you know.
Escalating makes no sense independant of you political ideology.

ps im busy, bad spelling i know

How good of you to show your European colours. The rest of us in Canada believe in helping people who need help, and to do that, we need to be properly equipped.

Unless you like images, like that of Corporal Daniel Gunther, killed 1993 near Buci in Bosnia. A Canadian, killed by - car accident? Friendly fire? How about a rocket-propelled grenade, fired at him by one of the sides that he was supposed to protect. He was deliberately targeted by an anti-tank weapon.

I hope you have some shame, somewhere inside you. Our soldiers died to try and save other lives. Our soldiers are heroes.

You, sir, can go to hell.

Arn't we just so moraly superior that we should intervien and destroy all who are not as Canadian as we are.You sound like an American. Help people, don't kill people.A soldier that kills someone or oppreses someone because of the way the live isn't a hero to me.

Keeping public order (peacekeeping) should be like policeing. When was the last time you saw a cop driving a hummer ? or whelding an m-16 ?

Listen, the last time Canada tried to get a decent military and we built the best jet ever in history the Americans didn't want us to. Look up the Avro aero (http://archives.cbc.ca/IDD-1-75-275/science_technology/avro_arrow/) . What article might not tell you is that it was axed because the United States didn't want Canada being ahead of them, what the article might not tell you is all those Canadians went on to build the space shuttle. It probably won't tell you a lot.. what it should tell you is that Canada buckled to pressure from the USA. For that I will forever hate John Diefenbaker (I might add a freaking conservative)
All I can say to that is bullshit!

This is ridiculous--the Avro Arrow was scrapped because it was costing the Federal government a ridiculous amount of money--and we all know how OUR government works--if something military related either costs too much or starts to break down, the government jus scraps the whole damn thing--ironic, since their lack of funding in the first place is what created the braek downs, but anyway--yes, Avro Aero NOT scrapped because of American opinion--the Americans were complaining throughout the Cold War that we weren't doing ENOUGH to contribute to Continental defence--so it does not make any sense that they would discourage us from designing a plane to help in that cause.

This is ridiculous--the Avro Arrow was scrapped because it was costing the Federal government a ridiculous amount of money--and we all know how OUR government works--if something military related either costs too much or starts to break down, the government jus scraps the whole damn thing--ironic, since their lack of funding in the first place is what created the braek downs, but anyway--yes, Avro Aero NOT scrapped because of American opinion--the Americans were complaining throughout the Cold War that we weren't doing ENOUGH to contribute to Continental defence--so it does not make any sense that they would discourage us from designing a plane to help in that cause.

Is that what your parents told you? It's not true. If it was just a matter of money, than why didn't the Americans buy it? It was the most advanced plane (jet) ever made in history for it's time. If it was just the money why was it not only scraped but every bit of evidence on how to build one was destroyed along with it. It wasn't about the money.

Is that what your parents told you? It's not true. If it was just a matter of money, than why didn't the Americans buy it? It was the most advanced plane (jet) ever made in history for it's time. If it was just the money why was it not only scraped but every bit of evidence on how to build one was destroyed along with it. It wasn't about the money.

-No, this is what my professor, who's area of specialty is Canadian history, post 1945, focussing on cold war developments within the military, is lecturing on. I *think* i'm going to take his word over yours. That is, unless you can provide adequate proof, in some sort of documentation, to substantiate your conspiracy theory.

Listen, the last time Canada tried to get a decent military and we built the best jet ever in history the Americans didn't want us to. Look up the Avro aero (http://archives.cbc.ca/IDD-1-75-275/science_technology/avro_arrow/) . What article might not tell you is that it was axed because the United States didn't want Canada being ahead of them, what the article might not tell you is all those Canadians went on to build the space shuttle. It probably won't tell you a lot.. what it should tell you is that Canada buckled to pressure from the USA. For that I will forever hate John Diefenbaker (I might add a freaking conservative)



All I can say to that is bullshit!




At least he didn't give the West the middle finger like so many of the Liberals have.

I, being canadian, am not much of a fan of Martin. I'm much of a Chretien Liberal. Paul Martin is rather conservative in my opinion. I honestly don't believe canada has any need for an army since we're a pacifist country(With exception to those crazy western concervatives but they don't matter.)

In any case I think I'll rant about Canadian politics now. I find it compleatly insane how people still can't see throught the facade of the Bloque Quebecois. I'm personally a supporter but only because of the minority government. The NDP needs to get it's act together. They're less organised than American liberals! The conservatives are just another embodiment of some extreamist religious group. If you're in the mood to go back 60 years in human rights when women can be imprisonned for adultery and abortion is compleatly illegal, gays are burned at the stake and the church makes it's triumphant return to the public school system, vote for them!

I, being canadian, am not much of a fan of Martin. I'm much of a Chretien Liberal. Paul Martin is rather conservative in my opinion. I honestly don't believe canada has any need for an army since we're a pacifist country(With exception to those crazy western concervatives but they don't matter.)

In any case I think I'll rant about Canadian politics now. I find it compleatly insane how people still can't see throught the facade of the Bloque Quebecois. I'm personally a supporter but only because of the minority government. The NDP needs to get it's act together. They're less organised than American liberals! The conservatives are just another embodiment of some extreamist religious group. If you're in the mood to go back 60 years in human rights when women can be imprisonned for adultery and abortion is compleatly illegal, gays are burned at the stake and the church makes it's triumphant return to the public school system, vote for them!



But Jean wasn't bad at all. He just wasted our money on the sponsorship program and then left the crap for Martin to deal with. The only good thing he ever did was to not send troops to Iraq. Otherwise, I really dislike him.

But Jean wasn't bad at all. He just wasted our money on the sponsorship program and then left the crap for Martin to deal with. The only good thing he ever did was to not send troops to Iraq. Otherwise, I really dislike him.

Yes but he was just such a likable confused frenchman.

You're talking to a member of the Conservative Party, so don't be surprised by that response.

Can you tell I'm not a fan of conservatives? heh heh...

--Also, you said "What would be the purpose of having a military when there are no conflicts canada is currently engaged in."--no current engagements, eh? How's this for starters:

--Operations Athena (1003 personnel) and Accrus (1 person) in Afganistan
--Cyprus (since 1964)
-- Operation Danaca in The Golan Heights (193 people)
--Operation Safari in Sudan (4 people)
--Operation Hamlet in the Carribean (Haiti) (2 people)
--Operation Crocodile in the Congo (8 people)
--Operations Snowgoose in Cyprus (1 person)
--Op. Altair in the Persian Gulf (1 person)
--Operation Foundation in Florida (no clue why--maybe as a 3rd party peacekeeper in case they messed up the election again) (6 people)
--Op. Boreas in Bosnia-Herzegovina (69 people)
--Op. Bronze in Bosnia-Herzegovina (14 people)
--Op. Calumet in Sinai (28 people)
--Op. Jade in Jerusalem (8 people)
--Op. Reptile in Sierra Leone (5 people)
--Op. Sculpture in Sierra Leone (8 people)
--Op. Iolaus in Iraq (1 person...not really a deployment since we're not officialy involved..probably an observer or something)

and: "On 3 Jan 05, the Minister of National Defence announced that the DART will begin deploying to Ampara, Sri Lanka, on Thursday, 6 January 2005. Initially, four charter Antonov-125 flights from 8 Wing Trenton will transport the DART equipment into Colombo, Sri Lanka." --yes, Antonov is Russian, just as we said earlier...everyone else has got to cart us around, its pathetic.

--All of the above are CURRENT Canadian forces deployments--as in, our forces are in those places TODAY--be it on peacekeeping/making missions, policing (such as with OP Athena and Accrus in Afghanistan). So, what was that? No current engagements of the Canadian forces? I dont know, I'd say we're pretty well spread around, wouldn't you? Now, we just need to support those troops with the proper equipment...

--Oh, and, btw, all the above information was pulled directly from this website: www.forces.gc.ca --yes, that's right--the Canadian Armed Forces website...quite publically availiable information...maybe you'd want to investigate these things before you make claims again.[/QUOTE]


What the Canadian Forces website doesn't detail is what the assignments are for personnel involved in those missions. For instance, the smaller missions are not involved in combat. The personnel involved there are typically in a consultation or an organizational role.

In Florida for instance, those 6 people are there under NATO auspices in a monitoring role. In Iraq, that soldier is actually attached to an American Unit through a cross-agency exchange program. There are another 14 people serving on American boats in the Gulf through a similar program.

When the UN or NATO asks for Canadian contributions, you may be surprised to find out that it is NOT our military forces they want persay. They want our experts, consultants, and most of all, they want our elections officials. Canada's reputation for overseeing and monitoring elections processes are second to none.

For more info, you can read 'Canada in the World' by Dr. Tom Keating of the University of Alberta. Or take his Canadian Foreign Policy class if you are lucky enough.

Can you tell I'm not a fan of conservatives? heh heh...



I wouldn't have guessed that in a million years :rolleyes: I'm not a social conservative though, I'm a fiscal one, although I am a Christian.

Caladai I happened to enjoy Gawdly's poem...
You do not have to be completely serious and take everything personally in order to argue.
Canada at this point in time does have the right to criticize the US, it is usually those who are not involved who criticize, and when those Americans who are grudgingly involved start to criticize then they get called unpatriotic and get as many rights and if they are good at it and actually get their message heard they slowly get every right that the US gov can take from them taken away. Canada being a fairly innocent bystander who has pretty much renounced war has every right to criticize America and I actually encourage them to, maybe America could pull it's head out of it's own butt and learn a couple of things from other countries.

You're talking to a member of the Conservative Party, so don't be surprised by that response.

Yeah, a member of the opposition! I admire you for standing by your party....even though the conservatives will probable become less and less successful every election.But thats alright cause opposition is a cornerstone to Parlament, and Steven Harper is a pritty funny guy at thoughs Christmas Roasts. Almost as Funny as Martin....Bon voyage Carolin Parish!

Actually I find Jack Layton the funniest, in the NDP commercials when he tries to speak Chinese. As for the Conservatives, they will always have the Western base, if nothing else. Now thats about only 60 seats but whatever.

Mr.Browning, after reading a number of your posts today, I have discovered that you have a knack of annoying me. Thank you, my wife held that title long enough.

We are who we are, we do what we do,
if it don't make you happy, tough doggy-do.

We are maple syrup, we are beavers
ain't got no Trumps or Ward Cleavers.

We are hockey, and Celine Dion
and lotsa snow that you can pee on.

We are peace and love and all that crap,
we seldom choke the dove, and we'd never invade Iraq.

Our army is small, which says it all,
we'll help the world and leave the fightin' to y'all.


We should be doing more to help the world via peacekeeping, we need a middle sized army to be effective. We CAN afford such a army.

I dont get why anti army people cant see that rebuilding the canadian army mean we will be involved in iraq????

Yeah, a member of the opposition! I admire you for standing by your party....even though the conservatives will probable become less and less successful every election.But thats alright cause opposition is a cornerstone to Parlament, and Steven Harper is a pritty funny guy at thoughs Christmas Roasts. Almost as Funny as Martin....Bon voyage Carolin Parish!


Thanks for putting a corrupt mexico PRI style party in power for 15 years! Well done suburan TO!!!

Thanks for putting a corrupt mexico PRI style party in power for 15 years! Well done suburan TO!!!

Please....you know that the conservatives are just as corrupt; every political party is corrupt, its sort of like a requirment. All the other parties just have a better record...because they have no record, the Liberal party is the only Confederation era party left, and the only current party to have formed a government.

What the Canadian Forces website doesn't detail is what the assignments are for personnel involved in those missions. For instance, the smaller missions are not involved in combat. The personnel involved there are typically in a consultation or an organizational role.

In Florida for instance, those 6 people are there under NATO auspices in a monitoring role. In Iraq, that soldier is actually attached to an American Unit through a cross-agency exchange program. There are another 14 people serving on American boats in the Gulf through a similar program.

When the UN or NATO asks for Canadian contributions, you may be surprised to find out that it is NOT our military forces they want persay. They want our experts, consultants, and most of all, they want our elections officials. Canada's reputation for overseeing and monitoring elections processes are second to none.

For more info, you can read 'Canada in the World' by Dr. Tom Keating of the University of Alberta. Or take his Canadian Foreign Policy class if you are lucky enough.[/QUOTE]

I'm not surprised at all--I know exactly what those personnel are there to do---my arguement is that those types of deployments are all we CAN do-no nations call on us to play a military role because we simply cannot do so.