NationStates Jolt Archive

May 22, 2006: Canada is having a hard time recruiting enough troops for its armed forces. Despite aggressive recruiting over the last four years (which brought in 20,000 new troops), there was a net gain of only 700 in the force of 56,000. Compared to the United States (which has ten times the population), Canada has only about half as many troops, per capita, on active duty. Yet the United States, despite being at war, is able to keep their force up to strength.

The Canadian problem is political, and cultural. While the Canadian armed forces earned a reputation as tough and effective soldiers during the two World Wars and Korea, the country became less enthusiastic about supporting their military during the last few decades. This has reached the point where the armed forces feels resented and unwanted. Budgets were cut so much that Canada is a generation or more behind the United States in many categories of weapons and equipment.

Canadian army troops have gotten a lot of work on peacekeeping missions, and saw combat in the 1991 Gulf War and Afghanistan, where they distinguished themselves. But for all that, the troops do not feel respected or appreciated in their own country, and this appears to be reflected in the recruiting numbers. Canada wants to increase military manpower 23 percent, but some new ideas, policies and attitudes will be need to carry that out. Conscription is not an option, as Canada has never used it in peacetime, and implemented it only with difficulty in wartime.

__________

Maybe because it's a byproduct of this?
_______________

Draft-dodger memorial to be built in B.C.
Last Updated Wed, 08 Sep 2004 11:24:03 EDT
CBC News
NELSON, B.C. - B.C. activists plan to erect a bronze sculpture honouring draft dodgers, four decades after Americans opposed to the Vietnam War sought refuge in Canada.

The memorial, created by artists in Nelson, B.C., ties into a two-day celebration planned for July 2006 that pays tribute to as many as 125,000 Americans who fled to Canada between 1964 and 1977.

LINKS: Seeking Sanctuary: Draft Dodgers

"This will mark the courageous legacy of Vietnam War resisters and the Canadians who helped them resettle in this country during that tumultuous era," Isaac Romano, the director of the Our Way Home festival told a news conference in Nelson Tuesday.

The event will honour people who came to Canada and resisted war efforts, from burning their draft cards during the Vietnam War to leaving the army to protest the war in Iraq, Romano said.

Musicians – many of who participated in the anti-war movement – will play at the festival, scheduled for July 8-9, 2006. Historians and critics of U.S. foreign policy will speak and a documentary about American war resisters by director Michelle Mason will be screened.

Estimates of the number of Americans who came to Canada because they opposed the Vietnam War range from 50,000 to 125,000.

They sought refuge in Canada between 1964 and 1977 in one of the biggest political exoduses in U.S. history.

The first wave of Vietnam era immigrants, called "draft dodgers," was largely middle class and educated.

Deserters from the army came later, mostly with little education or money.

Many of the war resisters settled in British Columbia, especially in the Gulf Islands, the Sunshine Coast and the West Kootenay, the B.C. Interior region where Nelson is located.

Thousands returned south after President Jimmy Carter granted them amnesty in 1977, but the 1986 census indicated that half stayed in Canada.

What, not being stupid enough to enlist and go get killed halfway across the globe in a war that has nothing to do with us is a bad thing now?

And why would we want to be on an equal technological footing with the USA anyway? Not all countries want to spend uselessly all that money on trying to find ways to kill humans faster. We'd rather have univesal healthcare for everyone: it's a question of choices, I suppose.

What, not being stupid enough to enlist and go get killed halfway across the globe in a war that has nothing to do with us is a bad thing now?

And why would we want to be on an equal technological footing with the USA anyway? Not all countries want to spend uselessly all that money on trying to find ways to kill humans faster. We'd rather have univesal healthcare for everyone: it's a question of choices, I suppose.
While draft dodgers aren't bad people(deserters, who are SUPPOSED to know the risks of joining the military and did so, but quit when their decision came back to bite them in the ass, are just cowards who should have thought ahead more), why honor specifically them? Why not erect more statues to WWII vets or firefighters?

As for universal healthcare, I don't think very many economies can handle the stress, especially in countries experiencing population growth. It's just a drain on society and could cause an economic collapse, thereby eliminating any welfare programs supported by the government of said nation. UH shouldn't be attempted until the economy can handle the load with enough funds to spare for disaster relief for a catastrophe or two.

What, not being stupid enough to enlist and go get killed halfway across the globe in a war that has nothing to do with us is a bad thing now?

And why would we want to be on an equal technological footing with the USA anyway? Not all countries want to spend uselessly all that money on trying to find ways to kill humans faster. We'd rather have univesal healthcare for everyone: it's a question of choices, I suppose.

Well, to be fair, Canada has participated in every UN peacekeeping campaign in history, which is a very impressive record, one far better than us Brits. That's worth keeping up a small amount of military spending, alone, methinks.

Anyway, I thought Trudeau introduced universal healthcare already?

Canada has a fine military and I wish they would take better care of it.

As for universal healthcare, I don't think very many economies can handle the stress, especially in countries experiencing population growth. It's just a drain on society and could cause an economic collapse, thereby eliminating any welfare programs supported by the government of said nation. UH shouldn't be attempted until the economy can handle the load with enough funds to spare for disaster relief for a catastrophe or two.
Canada's been handling it quite well up to now. The system may not be perfect, but at least we don't have 25% of our population without coverage.

The same can be said of a sprawling military. But when push comes to shove, I'd rather my government spend my tax dollars on healing and helping my fellow citizens, than use them to devise new ways of killing brown people because they're bad, bad terrorists(sarcasm about the brown people and terrorism, of course).

Moreover... which country of the Canada and the USA failed utterly at disaster relief and catastrophes last year?

Moreover... which country of the Canada and the USA failed utterly at disaster relief and catastrophes last year?

How many Catastrophes did Canada have last year? Oh yea...didn't hear about one.

15% of Americans are without insurance, not 25%.
And I don't see what health care has to do with military recruitment.

Well, to be fair, Canada has participated in every UN peacekeeping campaign in history, which is a very impressive record, one far better than us Brits. That's worth keeping up a small amount of military spending, alone, methinks.

We are already spending quite a bit of money on it. We just have a mentality of focusing on the training of the soldiers, not expensive technological equipment like the US army.

I'm not really advocating cutting off all spending in the military: but I'm against spending more than what we spend now. Comparing ourselves with the USA, which is the country with the most military funding per capita in the world, is kinda pointless.

And, I'd like it to stay about peacekeeping missions. I have no wish for our soldiers to get killed going terrorist-hunting: that's pointless, and only exacerbates the conflict because it makes martyrs out of them. Let em rot in their hidden mountain bases and concentrate on protecting the civilians and making their lives a little better and freer.


Anyway, I thought Trudeau introduced universal healthcare already?
Yes. Universal healthcare is applied in Canada. I never said otherwise... Just that if we had too much money and didn't know what to do with it, I'd spend it on healthcare rather than war.

Yes. Universal healthcare is applied in Canada. I never said otherwise... Just that if we had too much money and didn't know what to do with it, I'd spend it on healthcare rather than war.

Even if your nation is under threat?

How many Catastrophes did Canada have last year? Oh yea...didn't hear about one.
Floods in Manitoba and Saskatchewan last spring. A couple of years back, a major power failure throughout Québec due to black ice and violent snowstorms... Frequent forest fires in the north.

Who would have thought things happened in the outside world? Your media might simply not broadcast it. Our media doesn't bother with foreign catastrophes unless they're of epic proportions like the tsunami in asia or Kathrina. It would seem reasonable to assume the american media doesn't get their panties in a bunch everytime a natural catastrophe happens elsewhere, either.

In all those circumstances, the disaster relief was efficient and quick. The army was even called in during the power failures.

Even if your nation is under threat?
And exactly who is threatening us, pray tell?

15% of Americans are without insurance, not 25%.
And I don't see what health care has to do with military recruitment.
A military machine costs lots of money. Ours is of decent size already, and we don't need to expand it unless we're planning on waging wars(which is an idea to which I'm opposed). I'd rather have the money put to better use(read:healthcare).

Canada's military needs funding and support. And no matter how you see it, Canada needs the military, for protecting our sovereignty, and to conduct peacekeeping and peacemaking missions (like what we're doing now in Afghanistan).

Times have changed, and unfortunately Canada is a target for the al-Qaeda so it would only make sense for our troops to battle terrorism in Afghanistan. And the Canadian forces are helping the Afghan people recover from decades of Taliban rule, this is just one of the many contributions we are giving to nations less fortunate/privileged than us.

Yes, I do believe in the healthcare system. However, I think the military is essentially to a country like Canada, if we didn't fund the army sufficiently the army wouldn't be powerful enough and we'd have to rely on foreign forces to protect us (notably the United States, and that would be another issue of sovereignty on itself).

Just my thoughts.

The recruitment problems in the Canadian military reflect cultural differences. Canadians have never had a desire to unilaterally project Canadian influence on the international stage. Also Canadians have never felt threatened (militarily) by another country at any time in recent history.

Anyway, I thought Trudeau introduced universal healthcare already?

We got universal healthcare long before Trudeau came in. We also spend less on it per capita than Americans.

But anyway, about the military...

Canada and the USA are culturally different when it comes to the military, and occupy very different world standpoints. The USA thinks it is the only superpower, and feels compelled to maintain an active presence everywhere to ensure its dominant place, and of course to spead its values abroad. Canada has a much less interventionist attitude, and has become lax in peacekeeping, too. Recent budgets have poured funds back into the Canadian military, however. Culturally, Canadians will probably remain less warlike than their Southern neighbours, but there might be some growth in Canadian military strength.

Interestingly enough, thanks to all the cutbacks and lack of new equipment, the Canadian Corps Of Engineers is quite famous for being able to patch just about anything. Canada is also considered one of the more sophisticated forces in communications.

Floods in Manitoba and Saskatchewan last spring. A couple of years back, a major power failure throughout Québec due to black ice and violent snowstorms... Frequent forest fires in the north.

Oh puhlease. That's nothing compared to major hurricanes, minority hurricanes, and Tropical Storms hitting every part of the Gulf Coast as well as hitting the East Coast. Floods throughout the Missouri, Mississippi, Ohio, Columbia river valleys. Floods throughout California, mudslides in California. Heck....We get violent snowstorms every year as well. Those aren't even catastrophes. Tornadoes? We have those and they range from F0-F5. Yep Yep...We have worse natural disasters than Canada does.

Who would have thought things happened in the outside world? Your media might simply not broadcast it. Our media doesn't bother with foreign catastrophes unless they're of epic proportions like the tsunami in asia or Kathrina. It would seem reasonable to assume the american media doesn't get their panties in a bunch everytime a natural catastrophe happens elsewhere, either.

Actually...I have heard of disasters elsewhere when they aren't of epic proportion. Maybe because I am a weather nut.

In all those circumstances, the disaster relief was efficient and quick. The army was even called in during the power failures.

Why should the army be called in for something like that? Couldn't your police handle it?

Skaladora stop attacking the US, you're painting a bad picture for all of us Canucks.

Simply put, the mentality regarding military service in Canada is not the same as the United States. Therefore you cannot easily compare the two nations.

And why would you bring up Natural Disasters?? We had nothing close to the devestation that ensued in the US! Those floods and fires are not even close to the five or so Hurricanes that tore through the US, not to mention the several dozen tornadoes.

Skaladora stop attacking the US, you're painting a bad picture for all of us Canucks.

Simply put, the mentality regarding military service in Canada is not the same as the United States. Therefore you cannot easily compare the two nations.

And why would you bring up Natural Disasters?? We had nothing close to the devestation that ensued in the US! Those floods and fires are not even close to the five or so Hurricanes that tore through the US, not to mention the several dozen tornadoes.

Thank you Artitsa. Well said.

Canada's military needs funding and support. And no matter how you see it, Canada needs the military, for protecting our sovereignty, and to conduct peacekeeping and peacemaking missions (like what we're doing now in Afghanistan).

Times have changed, and unfortunately Canada is a target for the al-Qaeda so it would only make sense for our troops to battle terrorism in Afghanistan. And the Canadian forces are helping the Afghan people recover from decades of Taliban rule, this is just one of the many contributions we are giving to nations less fortunate/privileged than us.
We're only becoming a target because we've recently started going Taliban-hunting, instead of sticking with peace-keeping. It only makes sense that these wackos decide we're a target too since we're now coming after them, which we weren't doing in the past.

We don't need MORE funding than we already have. Plenty of money is going into the military; if we'd stop buying crappy helicopters that keep crashing and fucking useless brit used submarines that catch on fire underwater, we could afford new, tough, durable material, even if it isn't the latest american technology.

A small, but very efficient and effective military is our best bet. Not a large, sprawling, expensive one. We don't have the funds for that, and even if we did, I'd still be against the idea.

Yes, I do believe in the healthcare system. However, I think the military is essentially to a country like Canada, if we didn't fund the army sufficiently the army wouldn't be powerful enough and we'd have to rely on foreign forces to protect us (notably the United States, and that would be another issue of sovereignty on itself).

Just my thoughts.
We don't need the USA to protect our sovereignty. No country in the international scene threathens Canada. If a country did, we would be able to defend ourselves unless it's a much bigger country, like the USA, Russia, Germany, China or another big player. No matter how much cash we'll put in the military, we'll never be a match for them, because we're a middleweight in terms of population and that affects the quantity of cash we have available to spend on the military.

Instead, we've been ingenious little bastards and made friends with everyone, ensuring that if we ever got caught into a war, we could ask our allies for help. But that's very unlikely to happen anyway, since we have no enemies out there.

Moreover... which country of the Canada and the USA failed utterly at disaster relief and catastrophes last year?

Maybe the katrina screwups were due to the US military having spent so much time and money on tsunami relief work in late 2005/early 2006.

Did canada have a couple of aircraft carriers out there supplying food to the suvivors?

little known fact:
60% of the katrina dead still had their car parked in front of their house when the storm hit

Maybe the katrina screwups were due to the US military having spent so much time and money on tsunami relief work in late 2005/early 2006.

Not to mention alot of those ships had to wait for the waters to recede to get to where they have to go.

Did canada have a couple of aircraft carriers out there supplying food to the suvivors?

Does Canada have Aircraft carriers?

little known fact:
60% of the katrina dead still had their car parked in front of their house when the storm hit

A fact that everyone forgets.

Oh puhlease. That's nothing compared to major hurricanes, minority hurricanes, and Tropical Storms hitting every part of the Gulf Coast as well as hitting the East Coast. Floods throughout the Missouri, Mississippi, Ohio, Columbia river valleys. Floods throughout California, mudslides in California. Heck....We get violent snowstorms every year as well. Those aren't even catastrophes. Tornadoes? We have those and they range from F0-F5. Yep Yep...We have worse natural disasters than Canada does.

So, you're saying you never heard of those, but that you KNOW they're nothing compared to your natural disasters? Sounds to me like you're full of shit, mister.

Or maybe your disasters are worse because no measures are taken to minimize their effects? Because the population in affected areas either isn't evacuated, are are too dumb to leave before the sky falls off on their head?


Why should the army be called in for something like that? Couldn't your police handle it?
It's not the police's job to help public services keep order in times of crisis: it's the army's. They were also asked to help in clearing the mess out, and they were a great help.

Besides, I see no reason NOT to call the army for disaster relief.

Skaladora stop attacking the US, you're painting a bad picture for all of us Canucks.

Simply put, the mentality regarding military service in Canada is not the same as the United States. Therefore you cannot easily compare the two nations.

And why would you bring up Natural Disasters?? We had nothing close to the devestation that ensued in the US! Those floods and fires are not even close to the five or so Hurricanes that tore through the US, not to mention the several dozen tornadoes.
Still, we have efficient government and provincial responses when natural disasters occurs. I'm not even the one who brought up the topic of disaster relief in the first place, I responded to another poster.

I never said Kathrina wasn't worse than what we had. Corneliu simply tried to imply that because we didn't have a tsunami that wiped millions of people, somehow our crisis management hadn't been put to the test. I disagree with that notion.

What, not being stupid enough to enlist and go get killed halfway across the globe in a war that has nothing to do with us is a bad thing now?

And why would we want to be on an equal technological footing with the USA anyway? Not all countries want to spend uselessly all that money on trying to find ways to kill humans faster. We'd rather have univesal healthcare for everyone: it's a question of choices, I suppose.

Because things such as 9/11 tend to happen. Technological footing? So yer gonna go back to the day of dot matrix printers and 486s? Technological innovation just doesn't mean war, although inventions for war do filter down into civilian channels too.

Well, for one, keeping your army on a technologically lower level than your next door neighbour isn't too good. There's a comic running around the USAF after the canadian bombing incident in afghanistan. The pilot is reporting that he sees a group of taliban armed with obsolete weapons and underarmed. The HQ radios back and says those are canadian forces :D .

So, you're saying you never heard of those, but that you KNOW they're nothing compared to your natural disasters? Sounds to me like you're full of shit, mister.

I don't hear about every single one. And floods are not catastrophes. They don't even come close. Neither are sever snowstorms or blackouts.

Or maybe your disasters are worse because no measures are taken to minimize their effects?

Obviously you do not know about the building codes in Florida for Hurricanes or in California for Earthquakes. heck, some towns have strict building codes for Tornadoes.

Because the population in affected areas either isn't evacuated, are are too dumb to leave before the sky falls off on their head?

Kinda hard to evacuate from a tornado now is it? People are stupid for staying when a Hurricane is closing in on ya.

It's not the police's job to help public services keep order in times of crisis: it's the army's.

Its the police's job to maintain public safety, not the Army. When we had our blackout, people were calm and collective. The Army was not even called out. They weren't needed.

They were also asked to help in clearing the mess out, and they were a great help.

And what mess would that be?

Besides, I see no reason NOT to call the army for disaster relief.

How is a blackout a disaster?

Maybe the katrina screwups were due to the US military having spent so much time and money on tsunami relief work in late 2005/early 2006.

That is all well and good, but kathrina was forecast several days in advance; if they'd been listening, they could have had an efficient response on time.

Besides, I know it's good to help other countries get over their disasters, but it's an extremely stupid decision to send in all available ressources, and not keeping enough home to deal with your own problems.

What was some famous guy saying about the straw in the neighbour's eye again?




little known fact:
60% of the katrina dead still had their car parked in front of their house when the storm hit
Yeah, I know, and of course those hold a great part of responsibility, if they were too pig-headed to leave. However, in Canada when we know shit is going to hit the fan, the police or the army evacuates ALL residents. We don't ask them nicely "would you please come with us" and let them stay in their homes and die if they say no.

Does Canada have Aircraft carriers?

Why would we need/want aircraft carriers?

Because things such as 9/11 tend to happen. Technological footing? So yer gonna go back to the day of dot matrix printers and 486s? Technological innovation just doesn't mean war, although inventions for war do filter down into civilian channels too.

Well, for one, keeping your army on a technologically lower level than your next door neighbour isn't too good. There's a comic running around the USAF after the canadian bombing incident in afghanistan. The pilot is reporting that he sees a group of taliban armed with obsolete weapons and underarmed. The HQ radios back and says those are canadian forces :D .
Having technology on par with other countries of the G-8 is quite sufficient.

Let me put it straight: the USA is the country in the world that spends the most buck on their military machine. Their population is also 10 times our own.

Even if we wanted to, we could NOT afford to have the same material and equipment they do. And I say it's not even desirable. Fair equipment is more than enough. If our airplanes can tie or outmatch Russian, British or Chinese airplanes, that's already more than enough. If they can't match the US airplanes... then boo hoo. It's not like we're likely to ever go to war with the USA anyway. And if we did, even if our fighters were of equivalent quality, we'd lose anyway because they would have 10 times as many. Simple math.

In other words: stop comparing Canada's and the USA's military. It's like talking of apples and oranges; it's pointless.

The US fascination with technological warfare is ridiculous. Its military-industrial complex is a mess of corruption and waste. I am all for Canada having a capable military, but I do not want her going down that road. I think there is a balance to be found between snapping up every new gadget and running around with spears. Canada can have a fine, world-class military for a country its size without blowing money on every new toy that comes out.

That is all well and good, but kathrina was forecast several days in advance; if they'd been listening, they could have had an efficient response on time.

Feds can't do nothing without state permission. Since Blanco did not give the Federal Government to move the supplies into her state till AFTER the fact.....

Besides, I know it's good to help other countries get over their disasters, but it's an extremely stupid decision to send in all available ressources, and not keeping enough home to deal with your own problems.

And just precisely is the problem in understanding how the chain of command actually works? Apparently you need to brush up on how things work in this nation if your going to debate this topic. The feds cannot trump the states in this matter.

Canada doesn't need a military, they have ours to protect them. There's no way any hostile power could ever attack Canada without the US stopping them.

Canada doesn't need a military, they have ours to protect them. There's no way any hostile power could ever attack Canada without the US stopping them.

Thanks, but no thanks. Canada has been doing well with self-protection so far. Becoming a US posession would probably increase our status as a target.

There's a comic running around the USAF after the canadian bombing incident in afghanistan. The pilot is reporting that he sees a group of taliban armed with obsolete weapons and underarmed. The HQ radios back and says those are canadian forces

That is absolutely disgusting. Several Canadians are killed because of the inept abilities of a pilot and his controller. So what does the US Airforce do? Belittle soldiers... brothers in combat, after their death. Disgusting.

That is absolutely disgusting. Several Canadians are killed because of the inept abilities of a pilot and his controller. So what does the US Airforce do? Belittle soldiers... brothers in combat, after their death. Disgusting.

What's funny is... my dad is in the Air Force and I have yet heard of this joke. I agree with you it is disgusting.

How is a blackout a disaster?
Again, you prove you've never heard of it. It wasn't just a blackout during early summer on nice whether like you had when your power grid failed. It was several days of monstrous snowstorms(real ones. You americans don't know what a snowstorm is. You've never gotten a real one. Think large tropical storm, but with snow and ice instead of rain, and you'll have a comparative.)

Now, add in a blackout because frickin steel pylons have been sent to the ground like scattered toys, snapping the lines because of 120+ km wind and the weight of ice. A blackout that means NO HEATING for three quarter of the province, in the most dire month of winter, with temperatures around -40 celcius. With roads completely blocked by several feet of snow. Which meant going anywhere was impossible on your own, and even if the streets had been cleared you'd have to shover your own car out from under a mountain of snow in the frickin blizzard.

It took around two weeks to repair the pylons and put the grid back into working order. If the army hadn't been there to clear the roads, and evacuate everyone to places where they could be heated(thanks to the army's power generators), we'd have had several hundred deaths. As it is, only a dozen or so people died, and we had many cases of frostbite, but thanks to the military's quick reaction those with frosbite were quickly transported to an hospital.

Thanks, but no thanks. Canada has been doing well with self-protection so far. Becoming a US posession would probably increase our status as a target.


I don't mean as a posession. Your entire fucking airforce could fit on just one of our aircraft carriers, and 1/4 of your army. 5 carriers and you've got your entire military.

Canada's primary defense, wether nationalist pride lets you admit it or not is in the deterrent factor of the US. (Either because of our military or because Invaders would have to live so close to us)

The US fascination with technological warfare is ridiculous. Its military-industrial complex is a mess of corruption and waste. I am all for Canada having a capable military, but I do not want her going down that road. I think there is a balance to be found between snapping up every new gadget and running around with spears. Canada can have a fine, world-class military for a country its size without blowing money on every new toy that comes out.
Amen. I've been trying to get them to understand that for an hour now.

That is absolutely disgusting. Several Canadians are killed because of the inept abilities of a pilot and his controller. So what does the US Airforce do? Belittle soldiers... brothers in combat, after their death. Disgusting.

Rather more ironic, considering the fact that US airplanes did the same in Iraq, but with British soldiers. Killed one tommie and wounded several others after strafing a convoy they didn't know about. In a British Area. In airspace they weren't supposed to be in.

Or what about the British Chinook that US forces shot down with a SAM? Or the tank they blew up in the first Gulf War?

Oh yeah, the US military is perfect...

Again, you prove you've never heard of it. It wasn't just a blackout during early summer on nice whether like you had when your power grid failed. It was several days of monstrous snowstorms(real ones. You americans don't know what a snowstorm is. You've never gotten a real one. Think large tropical storm, but with snow and ice instead of rain, and you'll have a comparative.)

Don't tell me what a snow storm is or is not. I grew up in Colorado Springs and in Missouri. My mother served up in Minot North Dakota. Do not tell me what a snowstorm is or isn't for I know that certain areas have their own definition of a snowstorm.

Now, add in a blackout because frickin steel pylons have been sent to the ground like scattered toys, snapping the lines because of 120+ km wind and the weight of ice. A blackout that means NO HEATING for three quarter of the province, in the most dire month of winter, with temperatures around -40 celcius. With roads completely blocked by several feet of snow.

Sounds like Buffalo after a lake effect blizzard. Oh yea....no military called out on that one. Of course...Buffalo is prepared for lake effect snow. As is most of the communities that get blasted with snow storms. What was that about being prepared? I know many people have a thing called generators that keeps the electricity on and provides heat. :eek:

Which meant going anywhere was impossible on your own, and even if the streets had been cleared you'd have to shover your own car out from under a mountain of snow in the frickin blizzard.

Most definitely sounds like Buffalo and other communities I could name.

It took around two weeks to repair the pylons and put the grid back into working order.

Only 2 weeks? Boy your boys work slow. We can get the power back on in less than 2 weeks.

If the army hadn't been there to clear the roads, and evacuate everyone to places where they could be heated(thanks to the army's power generators), we'd have had several hundred deaths.

What? No snow plows?

As it is, only a dozen or so people died, and we had many cases of frostbite, but thanks to the military's quick reaction those with frosbite were quickly transported to an hospital.

So you need a military for that? HAHA oh brother. That's pitiful.

I don't mean as a posession. Your entire fucking airforce could fit on just one of our aircraft carriers, and 1/4 of your army. 5 carriers and you've got your entire military.

Canada's primary defense, wether nationalist pride lets you admit it or not is in the deterrent factor of the US. (Either because of our military or because Invaders would have to live so close to us)
No it's not. You seem to think only the USA has close relations with Canada; let me assure you we have allies elsewhere in the world. Great Britain and France, for example, would also undoubtedly flee to our rescue.

Moreover, keep in mind Canada has 1/10th of your population. It's perfectly normal for us to have less military power. What you're saying is like Russia dissing Poland for not having enough forces to compete with her. Stop comparing apples and oranges. Canada is a middleweight: we never had any ambitions of being the heavyweight champion. We could perfectly defend ourselves from a country of comparable population size and economic power.

*snip*Again, you show your ignorance. I maintain the fact that you have no idea what a real snowstorm is. Once you've lived in Canada, or Siberia for a couple of years we'll pick up this discussion.

Again, you show your ignorance. I maintain the fact that you have no idea what a real snowstorm is. Once you've lived in Canada, or Siberia for a couple of years we'll pick up this discussion.

We know how to handle a snowstorm. I'm surprised you rely on your military to clean your streets. We don't rely on the military to clean our streets. Our power companies do a tremendous job of getting the power back on, even in winter. The longest blackout I ever heard of in the United States in Winter time was only a few days. You want to see a disaster.....I can list for you disasters that are devestating.

There was that massive power outage a couple summers ago... both countries weren't prepared for that. And I really don't think we were prepared for that Snow Storm..

The US gets bad ones too... don't you remember those Skaladora?

And Corneliu... our troops clean our streets... thats why our streets are so clean ;) Our armies fatigues are french maid's outfits.

And Corneliu... our troops clean our streets... thats why our streets are so clean ;) Our armies fatigues are french maid's outfits.

I always said that if you want something cleaned, call in the French. :D

Canada has a fine military and I wish they would take better care of it.

I totally agree! At least someone recognizes it. Obviously the politicians, public and media don't give a rat's ass about it.

While they have been underfunded for over 40 years, they have been expected to do things that they are not provided for. Man for man, in Canada, we have the best military in the world, except for Israel.

I totally agree! At least someone recognizes it. Obviously the politicians, public and media don't give a rat's ass about it.

Sounds like the American Media. they don't care about the military either and neither do some politicians.

While they have been underfunded for over 40 years, they have been expected to do things that they are not provided for. Man for man, in Canada, we have the best military in the world, except for Israel.

I wouldn't go quite that far in your last line :D

There was that massive power outage a couple summers ago... both countries weren't prepared for that. And I really don't think we were prepared for that Snow Storm..

The US gets bad ones too... don't you remember those Skaladora?

See, the difference between me and Corneliu, is that I don't minimize what happened to the USA as trivial. He seems to think anything that doesn't happen to them can't be a disaster... he's full of it, and I've decided to stop arguing with him over it, since his eyes and ears are closed anyway. I just won't talk with someone who has no clue what it was like says that that snowstorm wasn't a disaster. It's like me saying "Oh, Kathrina wasn't such a big deal, it was just a little wind and rain. Here in Canada, we have sewers and umbrellas."

We might not have been prepared, but our governments and military responded quickly. That's what disaster relief is all about: being able to keep your pants on and react fast when something unexpected arrives. I live in Québec, I was there during that crisis, and I know actions which saved dozens if not hundreds of lives were taken.

Again, you show your ignorance. I maintain the fact that you have no idea what a real snowstorm is. Once you've lived in Canada, or Siberia for a couple of years we'll pick up this discussion.

I long ago gave up arguing with Corny about ANYTHING. He'll claim that the US is bigger and better than anybody else at everything, that he is all knowing and you can'tteach him anythinh and that people in military uniform should be treated with god-like status. Prove him wrong and he'll just ignore you. Give it up whilst you can.

I long ago gave up arguing with Corny about ANYTHING. He'll claim that the US is bigger and better than anybody else at everything, that he is all knowing and you can'tteach him anythinh and that people in military uniform should be treated with god-like status. Prove him wrong and he'll just ignore you. Give it up whilst you can.
I'll follow your advice. My energy is best wasted elsewhere...

See, the difference between me and Corneliu, is that I don't minimize what happened to the USA as trivial.

I just put disasters into categories.

He seems to think anything that doesn't happen to them can't be a disaster... he's full of it, and I've decided to stop arguing with him over it, since his eyes and ears are closed anyway

This is utter crap. I know full well what a disaster is. A blackout or a snowstorm is not a disaster. A Hurricane? Now that's a disaster. An Earthquake? that is a disaster. A tornado? That is a disaster.

I just won't talk with someone who has no clue what it was like says that that snowstorm wasn't a disaster.

hehe. Fine. Even though snowstorms are not disasters. Heck...heat waves aren't disasters either.

It's like me saying "Oh, Kathrina wasn't such a big deal, it was just a little now and rain. Here in Canada, we have sewers and umbrellas."

:rolleyes:

We might not have been prepared, but our governments and military responded quickly. That's what disaster relief is all about: being able to keep your pants on and react fast when something unexpected arrives. I live in Québec, I was there during that crisis, and I know actions which saved dozens if not hundreds of lives were taken.

Well I'm glad.

I long ago gave up arguing with Corny about ANYTHING. He'll claim that the US is bigger and better than anybody else at everything, that he is all knowing and you can't teach him anything and that people in military uniform should be treated with god-like status.

1) your first charge is false. I never claimed that the US is bigger and better than anyone else.

and

2) I never said that the military should be treated like gods.

Heck...heat waves aren't disasters either.

Tell that to the couple of hundred French people that died a few years ago in a heatwave........Oh hell, I just gave him an opening to another lame anti-French joke......:headbang:

1) your first charge is false. I never claimed that the US is bigger and better than anyone else.

and

2) I never said that the military should be treated like gods.

So the last time I debated with you on the forums you didn't prevaricate for about 8 pages claiming that you knew the answers to our questions yet wouldn't tell us, because..........you wouldn't? Go home little boy, the adults are talking.

Tell that to the couple of hundred French people that died a few years ago in a heatwave........Oh hell, I just gave him an opening to another lame anti-French joke......:headbang:

Sorry. I do not crack jokes about those that died. Sorry if that blows your mind.

So the last time I debated with you on the forums you didn't prevaricate for about 8 pages claiming that you knew the answers to our questions yet wouldn't tell us, because..........you wouldn't? Go home little boy, the adults are talking.

I pick and choose my fights. I don't have to reveal any information I do not want to. If you have a problem with that...take it up with someone who cares.

Sorry. I do not crack jokes about those that died. Sorry if that blows your mind.

So in light of the information I have just given you is a heatwave a disaster or not? Will you retract your statement saying it is not?

So in light of the information I have just given you is a heatwave a disaster or not? Will you retract your statement saying it is not?

nope. A heat wave is not a disaster. Inconvenient but not a disaster. Heck...I played baseball in 90-100 degree weather during a heat wave. Though that heat wave lasted for about two weeks... try playing baseball in that kind of heat. No one got dehydrated and no one was taken to a hospital.

Texas had nearly a MONTH STRAIGHT of 90+ degree weather with NO RAIN. Nope. It isn't a disaster. Its an inconvience though but not a disaster.

The US fascination with technological warfare is ridiculous. Its military-industrial complex is a mess of corruption and waste. I am all for Canada having a capable military, but I do not want her going down that road. I think there is a balance to be found between snapping up every new gadget and running around with spears. Canada can have a fine, world-class military for a country its size without blowing money on every new toy that comes out.

Well...half the country does speak french, so you can make assumptions right there. Not to mention all the draft dodgers and deserters that stayed there.

Didn't Canada elect a Canadian version of GWB not too long ago?

:D

Well...half the country does speak french, so you can make assumptions right there. Not to mention all the draft dodgers and deserters that stayed there.

Didn't Canada elect a Canadian version of GWB not too long ago?

:D

Jesus Christ, anti-French jokes. I'm getting sick of them - and I'm British for crying out loud. The French have a great military record, so leave it out.

Jesus Christ, anti-French jokes. I'm getting sick of them - and I'm British for crying out loud. The French have a great military record, so leave it out.

Thanks Skinny. I am British by birth but hold a French passport (earnt, not bought are married into) and constantly offended by the anti-French comments on these forums.

Oh and corny, a heatwave still isn't a natural disaster? Like I said, tell that to the familys of the people who died. They thought it was a natural disaster alright.

Thanks Skinny. I am British by birth but hold a French passport (earnt, not bought are married into) and constantly offended by the anti-French comments on these forums.

Oh and corny, a heatwave still isn't a natural disaster? Like I said, tell that to the familys of the people who died. They thought it was a natural disaster alright.

A heat wave is by no means a natural disaster. Neither is a cold snap.

A heat wave is by no means a natural disaster. Neither is a cold snap.

Good old Corny, still refusing to admit your wrong eh? I wish I had your pigheadedness.....

Good old Corny, still refusing to admit your wrong eh? I wish I had your pigheadedness.....

Oh because I know a heat wave is not a natural disaster (even the south doesn't think of it as a natural disaster) I'm pigheaded? Please....I know what a natural disaster is and a heat wave is not a natural disaster.

Oh because I know a heat wave is not a natural disaster (even the south doesn't think of it as a natural disaster) I'm pigheaded? Please....I know what a natural disaster is and a heat wave is not a natural disaster.

Keep going man. If you don't want to believe that a natural event where hundreds of people die isn't a disaster, thats up to you....

Well...half the country does speak french, so you can make assumptions right there. Not to mention all the draft dodgers and deserters that stayed there.

Didn't Canada elect a Canadian version of GWB not too long ago?

:D
A minority government, not a majority at all houses. The difference is that we know he's a tad psycho and we keep him on a short leash. We had the choice between slightly psychotic zombie W.Bush and corrupted, rolling in your money orwellian pigs. The majority(of the minority) went with psycho zombie.

I didn't vote for him. I voted NDP, so my conscience is clear.

Keep going man. If you don't want to believe that a natural event where hundreds of people die isn't a disaster, thats up to you....

Just keep believing that it was when in fact it wasn't.

A heat wave is by no means a natural disaster. Neither is a cold snap.
Sir, you are being an ass. You have no more credibility than any of us on "what's a disaster and what isn't". I suggest you drop it.

Sir, you are being an ass. You have no more credibility than any of us on "what's a disaster and what isn't". I suggest you drop it.

Despite the fact that I have studied meteorology?

Sir, you are being an ass. You have no more credibility than any of us on "what's a disaster and what isn't". I suggest you drop it.

Told you he'd do this didn't I?

Told you he'd do this didn't I?

What? Telling the truth?

It occurs to me that there's a bit of a catch 22 with disaster preparedness. If you manage to prevent people from dying on a large scale due to preparedness, it wasn't a disaster. If you fail to save those lives, it was a disaster and you weren't prepared. You really can't win.

I think we can all agree that this constitutes a natural disaster.

http://soundart.com/Car.JPG

Am I right?

Despite the fact that I have studied meteorology?
Last time I talked to you, you were supposedly a reference in genetics. needless to say, I don't give any credibility to your claims. Even if you were to have indeed studied meteorology, meteorology is nothing more than weather predictions, and has no more authority on what is and what isn't a disaster than any other poster on this forum. My grandmother is as much an expert on disasters than any meteorologue: because a meteorologue's job is to foresee climatic changes, not scale their impact upon human society.

You should've pretended to be a sociology major, at least that would have been relevant.

It occurs to me that there's a bit of a catch 22 with disaster preparedness. If you manage to prevent people from dying on a large scale due to preparedness, it wasn't a disaster. If you fail to save those lives, it was a disaster and you weren't prepared. You really can't win.

I think we can all agree that this constitutes a natural disaster.

http://soundart.com/Car.JPG

Am I right?
Of course not, Corneliu said floods aren't a disaster. And we all know he's more credible than us on this subject, right?:rolleyes:

Last time I talked to you, you were supposedly a reference in genetics. needless to say, I don't give any credibility to your claims. Even if you were to have indeed studied meteorology, meteorology is nothing more than weather predictions, and has no more authority on what is and what isn't a disaster than any other poster on this forum. My grandmother is as much an expert on disasters than any meteorologue: because a meteorologue's job is to foresee climatic changes, not scale their impact upon human society.

You should've pretended to be a sociology major, at least that would have been relevant.

1) I never claimed to be a reference in genetics.
2) I never pretended to be a sociology major either. Frankly, I hate sociology.
3) I have studied meteorology and would still have that as my major if it wasn't for the math.
4) Meteorology is a tad more than weather prediction.
5) I doubt that your Grandmother is more than an expert as a meteorologist.

Last time I talked to you, you were supposedly a reference in genetics. needless to say, I don't give any credibility to your claims. Even if you were to have indeed studied meteorology, meteorology is nothing more than weather predictions, and has no more authority on what is and what isn't a disaster than any other poster on this forum. My grandmother is as much an expert on disasters than any meteorologue: because a meteorologue's job is to foresee climatic changes, not scale their impact upon human society.

You should've pretended to be a sociology major, at least that would have been relevant.

He claims to be an expert on pretty much everything. Genetics, meteorology, the world's military, international diplomacy.......

It occurs to me that there's a bit of a catch 22 with disaster preparedness. If you manage to prevent people from dying on a large scale due to preparedness, it wasn't a disaster. If you fail to save those lives, it was a disaster and you weren't prepared. You really can't win.

I think we can all agree that this constitutes a natural disaster.

http://soundart.com/Car.JPG

Am I right?

Yep you are right.

He claims to be an expert on pretty much everything. Genetics, meteorology, the world's military, international diplomacy.......

I never claimed genetics. I do know military History. I have studied international affairs and I have studied meteorology.

That's a picture from the major flood of 1997 that travelled all the way along the Red River. It threatened two major cities at its peak strength: Winnipeg and Fargo. One city as you'll notice, is American. The other is Canadian. The dikes built around Fargo to hold the flood waters at bay were insufficient and caused massive damage to the city. The city government in Winnipeg had invested a great deal of money in a floodway system several years prior and in conjunction with a dike system similar to Fargo's was able to avert the waters.

The Winnipeg floodway is currently being expanded to deal with even bigger flooding. The city of Fargo still has no plans for such a device.

On a personal level, in 1997 while the flood was cresting, the storm drain on my street stopped functioning correctly and the street began to flood. Within the hour, there were troops on my street with a large supply of sandbags helping to prevent the flood waters from reaching our homes.

I'm in the Canadian Forces, at least the army reserve, and I can say that our military does need more funding and support (and not spitting on us or calling us babykillers would be nice, though it is thankfully not all that common), but we also need to clean house. Lot's of money is needlessly wasted on the most useless trivial time consuming things that are unnecessary, wasted away on procurement programs that either are killed entirely or are taken control of partisan interests and contracts given out to areas where it will be politically beneficial while real solid needs are considered secondary. The fact that the CF has performed as well as it has is thanks solely to the efforts of the men and women in uniform.

Some ways to boost recruitment would be to get out to the public more and become more involved in communities, set up recruitment stands in malls and the like (reservists can be used for this so we wouldn't need to recruit more recruiters) and the whole recruitment process needs to be streamlined, it took me months to enlists and I've head of people who have had to wait over a year and half to join.

In regards to Canadian equipment, while we are desperately in need of many things (ships, planes, tactical and strategic lift) and the supply system needs to be fixed (yay for doing basic without tactical vest OR webbing! Hell, my buddy didn't have a sleeping bag or combat boots, but at least they issued them out after a few days). The equipment we do have is for the most part top notch, our rifles are better than the US army standard issue rifles, our infantry forces are among the most heavily armed in the world and our mainstay vehicle, the LAV-III, was adopted with much fanfare by the US as the stryker, and has proven itself as a fantastic vehicle in Iraq. So its not so much the quality of our equipment, its the quantity (except in regards to the air force, and partly the navy).

All right, that thread really got my attention.

Why? Because for my whole adult life, namely the last six years, I have been in the Canadian Forces, and I'll be in for another nice long time if everything works out.

People who think that the military doesn't need more money, well folks, wake up. You want security for our country, you want us to help people out abroad, you want us to be right there, right the f... now when there is a disaster. You can't have that while everything is done on the cheap. Maybe you want to have your cake and eat it too, but it doesn't work that way with the military. We are an expense, not an investment. And we can't do our jobs unless we're given the gear and bodies we need.

Recruiting. Yeah, it's been slow for some trades. Right now, the facility training people in my line of work is running beyond capacity. We're in a high-tech, highly specialized line of work, and that might be why we're getting bodies left right and center. Other trades, on the other hand, are scraping and scrounging for people. It's just the nature of the beast.

Equipment. A lot of our gear is outdated. But a lot of it is cutting-edge too. Yes, we're short on a lot of things, and there's stuff we need that we won't see for a while. We've been neglected for so long that it's not funny anymore, and jsut recently did the the powers that be woke up and decided to look revitalizing the military. It's not something that can happen overnight either.

Public perception of the military is one strange thing. Sometimes, I get thank-yous and congratulations, or let ahead in the line at Tim Horton's, or even given free coffee. Though, during the Ice Storm of 98, I saw a Quebeccer (I was raised there) whip a chunk of ice the size of my head at an English-speaking soldier screaming something to the effect of "Go home you (bleeping) anglo pig-dog." Somalia didn't help, neither did the debacle with the Airborne.

But we're climbing back up.

And by the way, not half of Canada speaks French. The only officially francophone province is Quebec, and they represent about 20% of the population, although there are centers of French-speaking people in many other places.

Just my rather extensive 2 cents.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ice_Storm_of_January_1998

thankfully assistance for this one traveled across the border in both directions. i have a friend who spent a month in northern ny and ontario working on restoring power. similarly, when we lost a good chunk of our power grid to a storm later that year, hydro-quebec was down in ny helping out our local power comany. being nationalistic during a crisis benefits noone, and folks would do well to recognize that actions of our neighbors have helped us both.

May 22, 2006: Canada is having a hard time recruiting enough troops for its armed forces. Despite aggressive recruiting over the last four years (which brought in 20,000 new troops), there was a net gain of only 700 in the force of 56,000. Compared to the United States (which has ten times the population), Canada has only about half as many troops, per capita, on active duty. Yet the United States, despite being at war, is able to keep their force up to strength.

The Canadian problem is political, and cultural. While the Canadian armed forces earned a reputation as tough and effective soldiers during the two World Wars and Korea, the country became less enthusiastic about supporting their military during the last few decades. This has reached the point where the armed forces feels resented and unwanted. Budgets were cut so much that Canada is a generation or more behind the United States in many categories of weapons and equipment.

Canadian army troops have gotten a lot of work on peacekeeping missions, and saw combat in the 1991 Gulf War and Afghanistan, where they distinguished themselves. But for all that, the troops do not feel respected or appreciated in their own country, and this appears to be reflected in the recruiting numbers. Canada wants to increase military manpower 23 percent, but some new ideas, policies and attitudes will be need to carry that out. Conscription is not an option, as Canada has never used it in peacetime, and implemented it only with difficulty in wartime.

__________
*snipped irrelevant bit about statue*

The problem with recruitment is that our politicians decided that we were having too few soldiers (and they are right in a sense) and decided that we would boost our military by 25,000 in 3 years. The goal is not realist and that's why recruitment isn't hitting it's target. We have no problems with keeping our current level of troops, just raising it.

May 22, 2006: Canada is having a hard time recruiting enough troops for its armed forces. Despite aggressive recruiting over the last four years (which brought in 20,000 new troops), there was a net gain of only 700 in the force of 56,000. Compared to the United States (which has ten times the population), Canada has only about half as many troops, per capita, on active duty. Yet the United States, despite being at war, is able to keep their force up to strength.

The Canadian problem is political, and cultural.

Canada doesn't have that many soldiers because she simply doesn't need them. I think that a nation's military should not feel resented. But I also think that it should not be placed on an altar and worshipped any more than any other government service.

I don't think a lack of a strongly militaristic culture is a problem. Are you really that concerned because the big government doesn't try so hard to keep its citizens in line?

Why not erect more statues to WWII vets or firefighters?
Such statues already (rightly) exist.

As for universal healthcare, I don't think very many economies can handle the stress, especially in countries experiencing population growth.
Canada can handle it, which is why they chose it.

Canada has a fine military and I wish they would take better care of it.
It does the job; so what's the problem?

15% of Americans are without insurance, not 25%.
And I don't see what health care has to do with military recruitment.
I think he was just comparing them because they are both government services. Contrary to popular belief among conservatives, the military is not private-sector.

Even if your nation is under threat?
What an idiotic straw man. America spends far more than enough on its military to merely meet the needs of self-defense.

Because things such as 9/11 tend to happen.
Isn't it an amazing coincidence that the worst terrorist attack ever happened to the country with the biggest military ever?

Didn't Canada elect a Canadian version of GWB not too long ago?

No.

2) I never said that the military should be treated like gods.
So why are you always complaining that they don't get enough respect or funding? I don't hear you saying that about other government services such as health or education. Conservatives like you simply do not understand that the military is just like any other tax-funded, government service. It doesn't have special status.

A heat wave is by no means a natural disaster. Neither is a cold snap.
Well, it's a change in nature that causes disastrous consequences. How is that not a natural disaster?

Just keep believing that it was when in fact it wasn't.
Please use logic, not appeals to your own authority.

Personally, I'd rather have less troops but have them better equipped.

There's a comic running around the USAF after the canadian bombing incident in afghanistan. The pilot is reporting that he sees a group of taliban armed with obsolete weapons and underarmed. The HQ radios back and says those are canadian forces :D .
That's just sad. Making light of a senseless error that costed the life of many brave men. That's just prooves to me that the US army is jingoistic. And those that find this funny are not better.

Welcome to my ignore list.

Well, then, let's not forget the Somali-incident involving some racist Canadians killing Somalis based on their skin color. Stories like this (http://www.socialism.com/fsarticles/vol17no4/canada174.html) have been in the Canadian media. I believe this might have brought such negativity in involving troops abroad.

Maybe because it's a byproduct of this?
Sure. Why not.

Dude, I'm a Canadian, and I honestly couldn't give a flying fuck whether we had enough soldiers to play a game of Dodgeball.

On a long term and stupidly optimistic front, is it possible that world peace could be achieved by no-one wanting to do the actual fighting.

Personally I'm waiting for the time when nations wage war via internet rts game battles. The Total War series could become even better:)

As long as there are genocidal warlords, jihadists, corrupt oppressive despots, warlords, and psychotic leaders in general there will always be war unfortunately.

As for the somali incident, the problems with the airborne were because of a select group of individuals and in no way represented the majority of the airborne, despite what that socialist site implies. Of course there were some bad troops, every army has its shit disturbers.

Times have changed, and unfortunately Canada is a target for the al-Qaeda so it would only make sense for our troops to battle terrorism in Afghanistan.
See, here's the thing about terrorists.. they're not an army. That's why they're.. well.. terrorists.

Sending troops to Afghanistan will do nothing to stop two guys with a rifle and a hole in the trunk of their car in Vancouver, BC. It won't do anything to keep someone from setting out a salt-lick infected with hoof & mouth disease in Drumheller, Alberta. Troops in Afghanistan have exactly zero stopping power against a computer hacker in North Korea dropping an electronic virus into an email that starts screwing with people's accounting programs in Toronto, Ontario. Troops in Afghanistan may, however, attract the attention of those types of people toward us.

That said, I still support our troops in Afghanistan in their peace-keeper roles. I'm a little concerned about what I'm hearing about possible racist and friendly fire incidents occurring though. I'd have thought the forces would have learned from Somalia and the airborne incidents.

But sending troops to stop terrorists? That's like sending Redcoats to stop guerrillas. Outmoded and trying to fight the wrong type of war.

Dude, I'm a Canadian, and I honestly couldn't give a flying fuck whether we had enough soldiers to play a game of Dodgeball.
Yeah why not just depend on the USA for defence? :rolleyes:

Yeah why not just depend on the USA for defence? :rolleyes:
Why not depend on diplomacy instead? Fuck the USA. Let us choose a bold, new path instead of following in the footsteps of a nation in a state of arrested development? Why should my tax dollars go towards subsidizing the adolescent fantasy-worlds of people who, up 'til now, have been allowed to foster an unhealthy appreciation for discharging their phallus-surrogates, dressing up in uniforms, and marching in formation?

Why "depend" on any hierarchical structures I do not, and can not, abide by? Let me guess, your comeback will invariably involve the need to "respect" the members of these hierarchical structures that I cannot. Been there, done that.

No sale.

The Canadian military can't recruit people because they pay really really poorly.

I investigated joining up after University, and there was simply no way I could justify the cost to myself.

It's a shame, really. We train excellent snipers - we just don't pay them very well.

Yeah why not just depend on the USA for defence? :rolleyes:
If you don't happen to remember, Canada opted OUT of the missle defence program, and it brought a lot of trouble to the BC lumber industry too. We don't need the US to protect us, nor do we need any other country. We as a nation feel there is no need to enlist during a time of peace, when most of the situations can be solved by diplomatic means anyway. We have a reputation as fierce fighters in war time, when there are real threats to our homeland. Terrorist attacks to Canada have only started to be a possibility, and I personally do not feel any danger even though I live right by a military base. We believe in peace, and that's how we're going to act until we have no other choice.

*snip*

What if Diplomacy fails?

What if Diplomacy fails?
What if polishing your collective gun-barrels gets people killed? Oh wait...

What if polishing your collective gun-barrels gets people killed? Oh wait...

What if diplomacy fails?

What if diplomacy fails?
If diplomacy fails, Canada not only has a fine military, as you noted, but is also a member of NATO. As long as the country can fulfill all its obligations under NATO treaties, they can have as few or as many troops as they want, they can build whatever statues they want and their people can think of the military whatever they want.

If diplomacy fails, Canada not only has a fine military, as you noted, but is also a member of NATO. As long as the country can fulfill all its obligations under NATO treaties, they can have as few or as many troops as they want, they can build whatever statues they want and their people can think of the military whatever they want.

Thank you for answering my question Neu :) Now if only Dobbsworld will.

What if diplomacy fails?
What if it succeeds? What if it succeeds to the extent that we become a much-loved people, with friends everywhere and no reason to fear?

I can keep this up all night, you know. But I won't. This boils down to the perpetual disagreement that sets us apart, Corneliu - where I'm willing to try a different approach, to actually try doing, on a large scale, something that hasn't actually been done before, you'll always cede in favour of the status quo, with no thought given to how it could be otherwise.

You already know my feelings on submitting - even submitting passively - to unneccesary, outdated hierachical systems designed expressly for the purpose of maintaining an unneccesary, outdated status quo. It's not on.
Thank you for answering my question Neu :) Now if only Dobbsworld will.
*sticks fingers in ears and waggles them*

Time is a luxury in some quarters.

*Snip*

Stop beating around the bush and answer my question.

What if diplomacy fails?

What if diplomacy fails?
If diplomacy fails, tragedy ensues. That being said, all conflict eventually ends via the auspices of diplomacy.

Diplomacy is all well and good, in fact, I sincerely wish (and I'm sure more or less all members of the armed forces also wish) that all problems and conflicts between countries and within countries could be and were solved with diplomacy and that we had world peace. It would mean we wouldn't have to go overseas to fight, and in some cases, die fighting to resolve these conflicts. Reality is, you can't negotiate with a genocidal militia or government that is committing atrocities and mass murder against its own people (Rwanda, Sudan, former Yugoslavia) nor can you negotiate with a people who strap bombs to themselves and blow up markets, buses, religious centers, population centers, hospitals, schools, etc because it is their religious duty. Nor can you necessarily negotiate with psychotic despots (Saddam, Stalin, Hitler, Pol Pot, and others) without condemning millions or tens of millions to years of oppression, torture, exploitation, etc.

And that ladies and gentlemen is why we need a strong military. Not only to protect ourselves, but to protect those unable to protect themselves.

Well...half the country does speak french, so you can make assumptions right there. Not to mention all the draft dodgers and deserters that stayed there.

Didn't Canada elect a Canadian version of GWB not too long ago?

:D

Quebec is hardly half of Canada. :rolleyes:

Steven Harper might be evil incarnate, but I am certain his reasoning abilities are beyond the Shrub's.