carepov

It was these two links that were broken. I have yet to read any credible analysis stating that Canada's military contributions to NATO or other international military missions have ever fallen short, so I was wondering if this can be found in the above two links (it is not in the other four links). AFAIK we meet all our promises to military allies and my sources indicated that we are "punching above our weight". Getting back to the OP, I've seen plenty of criticism of Canada falling short of it's commitments to foreign aid, I would rather see more investments in foreign aid than on new military capabilities.

Good questions. In general, if something "needs doing" we should "do what we can". Sometimes we should lead, sometimes we should follow, but we should almost always work with our allies. As stated by Lieutenant-Colonel Hope above, we should not enter major international missions without the US support. We have to be selective as to what areas we can lead. We can lead in the areas of police and military training. We cannot lead an amphibious assault. Specifically, we did our part in Afg and Libya. We were correct in staying our of Iraq. To my limited knowledge, the Haiti missions seem to have been successful. Rwanda was a colosal failure (shared with other countries of course). What will the next mission be? Who knows, but we should not fool ourselves into thinking that we can have a military that is "ready for anything".

So real power is population+oil reserves+votes in the UN General Assembly? Really? -Military ressources do not matter? -GDP does not mater?

You are good at ducking the question of real power. How about more specificly: What percentage of the world's military spending is spent by Islamic countries?

IMO, both claims are equally absurd.

It is worse because: -the preacher is a representative of his small niche community while a politician is a representative of a the electorate -the preacher has only the ability to influence members of his community but the politican has the power to advocate for laws that are binding on the entire constituency

It means community. So, what percentage of world's real power does the Islamic Ummah control?

Thanks. I enjoy the discussion, but I am frankly dumfounded as to why it is even being discussed. The idea that countries will be dominated by Islam is absurd yet some very knowledgeable people support this idea, why? I have had almost the same discussion with those that claim the "Jews are taking over the world: look at the political lobby, Jews control Hollywood and the media, they claim to be the "chosen people"" Absurd, yet prevalent, why?

Yes, there a symbols of unity but when it comes to real power, there is no united Islamic power. -Iran vs. Iraq -Iraq vs. Kuwait -Failed arab league -Turkish alliance with Israel -Sunni vs. Shia -Diverging philosophies of western Islam vs. non-western Islam -Syria (besides even IF there was a united Islamic power, how much world power would it control?)

Your first two links did not work for me. So I cannot see what other NATO countries supported recent missions more than Canada (besides the USA and GB) Yes, Canada could have done more but we could have done less as well. We did more than our fair share in both Afg. and Libya. I have not yet read all of : http://www.cdfai.org/PDF/Canada%20and%20NATO%20-%20A%20Military%20Assessment.pdf but the conclusions supports my argument that there is no point in trying to invest in all sorts of new (and expensive) capabilities: "For Lieutenant-Colonel Hope, who experienced first-hand working within the Alliance at the tactical level, Canada should only take part in NATO out of area combat operations if they are supported by US assets. “Canada can fight, as long as the US is there to fill the gaps.”"

Sure, population and oil reserves are aspects of power, but really, how much of the world does Islam control? 5%, 10%? Islam is growing by population by 2% per year. Is the power of Islam growing, I'm not so sure, it looks like downward slope for the last 500 years, no? Islam cannot even control their third holiest city. Of course all this talk is based on a false assumption that there is even a united Islam capable of uniting it's power.

1. 21% soon to be 25%...one quarter of the population. Try driving your car w/o gasoline. The OIC regularly hits-up the UN to pass Blasphemy Laws on ALL member nations. Due to the large voting block in favour, it has a good chance of actually happening. 2. For every pack of statistics claiming Islam isn't a fast growing religion, there's another claiming that it is. File it under: seen it on the internet. 3. Irrelevant in an Islamic nation. 1. a)You ducked the question. How much world power is controlled by Islam? b.) 2050 is not "soon to be". c) Who says Islamic countries will stop selling oil? Even if, I can buy plenty of gas from non-Islamic oil or we can take over and steal it. 2. In my link there are multiple sources including Encyclopedia Britannica. The world growth rate is 2% - if you disagree, please show me a source that says otherwise. 3. Very relevant if we are talking about "Islam dominating the West". Western Muslims are more moderate and far less likely to think that "Sharia Law is just fine". By the way, in what year do you foresee Canada becoming an Islamic Nation? And if you don't mind me asking, which nations do you foresee becoming Islamic in the next 5-10 years?

1. Islam does not dominate 1/4 of the planet. 21% of us humans are Muslim, but would you care to estimate how much power these 21% control (i.e. political clout, or control of financial, military, and other resources)? Certainly less than 10 % of the world's total. 2. Islam is growing at 2% per year, but Christianity is gaining more in absolute numbers than Islam. It is projected that by the 2050, Christians will make up 34% of our population and 25% will be Muslims. http://fastestgrowingreligion.com/numbers.html 3. Not all Muslims think that "Sharia Law is jus' fine".

Islamic Law calls for death for apostasy. Obviously this is a terrible Law and it supports my argument that it is delusional to think that Islam will dominate. By the way: "There are more Muslims leaving Islam today than there are new converts joining it." http://wikiislam.net/wiki/People_Who_Left_Islam And again, some Islamic communities challenge the interpretations of the Law and outright disagree: "Simple apostacy, which is not aggravated by rebellion, treason or grave disorderliness, is not punishable in any manner in this life. Islam guarantees complete freedom of conscience and of belief. A disbeliever and a simple apostate stand in the same category; neither of them is liable to any penalty in this life." https://www.alislam.org/books/apostacy/17.html

Interesting. This is the first time I've heard about more recent writings superseding prior writings in the Quran. Forgive me if I am sceptical but I will look for a credible source before believing it. Also, you say that all the peaceful writings in the Quran came before the "nasty bits", again I will need to verify. Why do you think that Islam is so different in different regions of the world? (Turkey, Arabia, N.Africa, Iran, Afg, S.Asia, SE Asia, and the West)

In Canada, there is none.

As you have just admitted, the messages in the Quran (and Bible) are subject to interpretation. Also, it is up to the individual to decide what to take literally and what to take figuratively, including the word "submission". Some moderates even ignore entire parts of the Quran (Bible). Earlier you wrote that it is certain that Islam will dominate because it is written in the Quran. On top of all the earlier refutations, I can also say: "Islam will not dominate because it is written in the Quran".

Yes of course there is but context is everything. It may be that the quotes in the Quran that incite violence are there in the context of war, or defending Islam. In contrast: The Qur’an goes further than religious freedom, instructing Muslims to show tolerance and respect to other religions. The verse, “Do not revile those unto whom they pray beside God, lest they wrongfully revile God through ignorance” (6:108), directly forbids verbal religious intolerance And how would you interpret: “There is no compulsion in religion” (2:256), My understanding is that Islam means submit or submission. I will take a guess that you take the word submit and think of a WWF move forcing an opponent to submit to ones power. It is actually more like submitting oneself to Allah.

Can you quote the Quran where it states that Islam will dominate? From my readings, the Quran and Islam have peace, tolerance and charity as pillars. The calls for violence and domination are misinterpretation of the Quran by a minority of radical Muslims. http://english.islammessage.com/articledetails.aspx?articleId=649 http://www.islamreligion.com/articles/207/viewall/ http://www.muslim.org/islam/tolerance.htm

1. Not all Muslims want to "dominate", not all interpretations of the Quran conclude that Islam's goal is to dominate. Some interpretations of non-Islamic texts also say that they will dominate how can you be certain that Islam will dominate but not some other ideology? 2. Even if the above point is conceded to you, then the stated goal of Islamic domination has been around for 1300 years and Islam is nowhere near domination - controlling only a tiny sliver of the world's political clout.

When I talk military commitments it means blood and treasure. My reading has suggested that Canada makes significant contributions to NATO and is not a "freeloader". "Mr Hutton will suggest that the reticence of some Nato members has left a small group of countries including Britain, the US and Canada to do an unfair share of the fighting and dying in Afghanistan." http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/onthefrontline/4240957/John-Hutton-says-Europeans-are-freeloading-on-Britain-and-US-in-Afghanistan.html http://www.nato.int/cps/en/natolive/topics_67655.htm "Gates did cite Norway, Denmark, Belgium and Canada for "punch(ing) well above their weight" fighting in Libya," http://usatoday30.usatoday.com/news/opinion/forum/2011-06-21-US-stuck-with-NATO-bill_n.htm

At what point, or range in time, will Islam will "dominate" Canada?

When will Islam "dominate"?

Sure, but why let facts get in the way of delusional opinions. http://blogs.vancouversun.com/2011/01/27/despite-fears-muslims-growing-only-modestly-in-world-and-canada/ Did you hear that Canada's aboriginal population is also growing? Does this concern you?

Regarding costs and spending: My best guess is that the F35 will cost about double to operate versus a Super Hornet. "According to the GAO, the Super Hornet actually costs the U.S. Navy $15,346 an hour to fly. It sounds like a lot — until you see that the U.S. Air Force's official "target" for operating the F-35 is $31,900 an hour. The GAO says it's a little more — closer to $32,500" http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/story/2013/02/27/pol-fighter-jets-boeing-superhornet-f-35-milewski.html It seems like an idiotic waste. We are paying $250,000,000 only for the design of a ship when similar ships are designed AND built for $100,000,000. Don't you think that this smells of idiotic waste? http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/story/2013/05/02/pol-milewski-shipbuilding-design-mystery.html I agree with most of what you write - what I am saying is that we should use some of the money saved in the above examples and spend it on things that will actually be useful to protect our troops and accomplish our missions. One example would be better communication and training with allies to ensure that the Tarnak Farm incident is not repeated. Basically we have a choice: a) spend money wildly now and in the future, double or triple the budget, "spend whatever it takes" b.) cut every corner we can and spend as little as we can on defence c) recognize that out resources are limited so spend our money wisely and carefully, be realistic about our capabilities d) spend (waste) all the money now and the see what happens and hope for the best later, ignore the fact that there will be no money later (some other government will be in power anyways) Our government has chosen d). Your position is a). If I understand dre's position correctly it is b.) and I say c). I think that your position is unrealistic, it will never happen, so basically it becomes the same as option d). Compared to Option c), option d) will take resources away from where troops need it and will end up hurting morale and endangering troops in future missions.