C-17's

[eyeball]

Not at all. Conscription would force Canadians to think twice before getting involved in other people's fights.

There are no foreign armed forces threatening our borders its just that simple. Even if there was, consider Switzerland, conscription works just fine for them, nobody's attacked them for centuries despite their being surrounded by world wars and one interfering empire after another.

[Army Guy]

Conscription would force our government to think twice before it tried to commit Canadians to its agenda. Volunteers on the other hand can't wait to go kill some so-called 'scumbag'.

Conscription in Canada is a thing of the past, it comes with to much baggage and heartache, aside from a major world changing event such as WWIII it won't happen...

As for volunteers that can't wait to go kill so called scumbags, Think again...nobody prays for peace more than a soldier...once you've seen, smelled, tasted, and experienced war, your in no hurry to experiance it again...

But there is enough men and women out there that will step up to the plate not because they crave to kill scumbags but because they believe that protecting our freedoms and freedoms of others is an honourable job and profession, as much as you believe that the use of force to achieve polictical means is wrong....

[Army Guy]

Not at all. Conscription would force Canadians to think twice before getting involved in other people's fights.

Worked well for us in the past, WWI, WWII....

There are no foreign armed forces threatening our borders its just that simple. Even if there was, consider Switzerland, conscription works just fine for them, nobody's attacked them for centuries despite their being surrounded by world wars and one interfering empire after another

.

Bullshit....Ask mother Russia how many nukes where aimed at Canadian cities, how many still are...why is there so many foreign spys operating here in Canada, because of of world domination plans, or because they percieve us as a threat...

Poor example the swiss live in an armed camp, where part time military service is a must until your 55, A long time if you hate the military and everything that comes with it....As for nobody attacking them, perhaps but they where influenced internally by outside forces....

[Wilber]

Not at all. Conscription would force Canadians to think twice before getting involved in other people's fights.

There are no foreign armed forces threatening our borders its just that simple. Even if there was, consider Switzerland, conscription works just fine for them, nobody's attacked them for centuries despite their being surrounded by world wars and one interfering empire after another.

All countries that have conscription also have a core volunteer force. While it does supply observers etc, as a neutral Switzerland takes no military action other than in defense of its own territory. Are you in favour of Canada abandoning all its alliances and becoming a neutral like Switzerland? To do so would make Canada 100% responsible for its own defense. Are you in favour of compulsory military service for all Canadian males between 19 and 31 as in Switzerland, in addition to a core volunteer military? The Swiss military strength was 220,000 in 2005 including militia and reserves. Sweden, another neutral with conscription has a total of over 320,000 including militia and reserves. Canada's has 87,000 although a larger regular force than either of them.

[AngusThermopyle]

Volunteers on the other hand can't wait to go kill some so-called 'scumbag'.

Oh great, another "expert" know it all. So where did you pull that "fact" from, out of your ass I think.

How many serving members did you interview before reaching this conclusion? Or is it just based on the envy and fear you experience when you think about people who are willing to sacrifice themselves in service of their country? By extension, in service of you as a Canadian citizen. Don't worry, even with conscription we wouldn't take you, we use machines to peel potatoes now.

[Borg]

Not at all. Conscription would force Canadians to think twice before getting involved in other people's fights.

There are no foreign armed forces threatening our borders its just that simple. Even if there was, consider Switzerland, conscription works just fine for them, nobody's attacked them for centuries despite their being surrounded by world wars and one interfering empire after another.

That is because of geography and the fact that a large percentage who serve in the military keep their weapons at home - enabling the country to mobilize a couple hundred thousand within 24 hours - unheard of anywhere else. Certainly it is so heavily armed that no country would want to try.

Plus dams rigged to blow and flood, tunnels with massive steel columns set to rise and block traffic, underground storage and shelter - undergrounsd airports for fighters, underground armouries for light and heavy weaponry and much much more.

To put it lightly - the entire country is an armed camp. And the crime rate is really low.

Plus - no one in the outside world wants their bank accounts destroyed and / or looted.

Sweden is also in this boat - no one could attack either country without sustaining absolutely massive and completely unacceptable losses.

Very poor example you used.

Borg

Edited May 28, 2008 by Borg

[eyeball]

Oh great, another "expert" know it all. So where did you pull that "fact" from, out of your ass I think.

How many serving members did you interview before reaching this conclusion? Or is it just based on the envy and fear you experience when you think about people who are willing to sacrifice themselves in service of their country?

I got the reference to 'scumbags' from some of the a-holes that post their approval of Canada's new pro-militaristic policies around here. Of course this is just a forum where less thoughtful inflammatory words sometimes get spoken but they seemed to mirror much of the willingness shown by soldiers in media reports to get into places like Afghanistan so they could put their training to use.

[eyeball]

That is because of geography and the fact that a large percentage who serve in the military keep their weapons at home - enabling the country to mobilize a couple hundred thousand within 24 hours - unheard of anywhere else. Certainly it is so heavily armed that no country would want to try.

Plus dams rigged to blow and flood, tunnels with massive steel columns set to rise and block traffic, underground storage and shelter - undergrounsd airports for fighters, underground armouries for light and heavy weaponry and much much more.

To put it lightly - the entire country is an armed camp. And the crime rate is really low.

Plus - no one in the outside world wants their bank accounts destroyed and / or looted.

Sweden is also in this boat - no one could attack either country without sustaining absolutely massive and completely unacceptable losses.

Very poor example you used.

Borg

Actually they're excellent examples. We definitely have geography on our side and we could easily and cheaply develop a defensive policy based on MAD. The more salient comparison we should be aiming for however is to imitate Switzerland's and Sweden's policy of neutrality and non-intereferance. This is the best defence of all.

[WarBicycle]

Keep dreaming.

[Wilber]

Of course this is just a forum where less thoughtful inflammatory words sometimes get spoken but they seemed to mirror much of the willingness shown by soldiers in media reports to get into places like Afghanistan so they could put their training to use.

You would rather be sending people out at the point of a gun? Government sets policy on behalf of all of us, you may not agree with some of those policies but be thankful there are those who are willing carry them out for you.

Norway is a NATO member that has conscription for all males. With a population 1/6 of Canada's it has 30,000 regular personnel of all types and can mobilize 130,000 if necessary. Perhaps conscription isn't such a bad idea after all.

[eyeball]

You would rather be sending people out at the point of a gun?

No. Not at all.

Government sets policy on behalf of all of us, you may not agree with some of those policies but be thankful there are those who are willing carry them out for you.

I don't disagree with the idea that governments should set policies on our behalf but I do think they should have to make far better cases for doing things like militarily interfering in the affairs of other people. Conscription would force government to build more solid and informed cases for doing so.

Norway is a NATO member that has conscription for all males. With a population 1/6 of Canada's it has 30,000 regular personnel of all types and can mobilize 130,000 if necessary. Perhaps conscription isn't such a bad idea after all.

There you go... my issue is not with defense its with offense.

[Wilber]

I don't disagree with the idea that governments should set policies on our behalf but I do think they should have to make far better cases for doing things like militarily interfering in the affairs of other people. Conscription would force government to build more solid and informed cases for doing so.

Why do you think that? If a government is determined to take a position, why would they care if the troops are conscripts or volunteers? Having a conscript army didn't keep the US out of Vietnam.

Edited May 28, 2008 by Wilber

[eyeball]

Why do you think that? If a government is determined to take a position, why would they care if the troops are conscripts or volunteers? Having a conscript army didn't keep the US out of Vietnam.

No, but it sure made it a lot harder to stay there once people started thinking about it. The thought of being drafted or knowing someone who might definitely had a lot to do with the end of that disgraceful war.

If our government became so determined to go to war that it had to force Canadians at the point of a gun, I'd be getting a gun and shooting back. Wouldn't you?

[M.Dancer]

Why do you think that? If a government is determined to take a position, why would they care if the troops are conscripts or volunteers? Having a conscript army didn't keep the US out of Vietnam.

Very true...and a conscript army didn't keep the UK out of malaysia, the USSR out of afghanistan, Germany out of Poland, Japan out of Manchuria, Italy out of ethiopia, France out of Algeria, or Argentinia out of the Falklands....

[eyeball]

(Wilber @ May 28 2008, 12:49 PM)

Why do you think that? If a government is determined to take a position, why would they care if the troops are conscripts or volunteers? Having a conscript army didn't keep the US out of Vietnam.

Very true...and a conscript army didn't keep the UK out of malaysia, the USSR out of afghanistan, Germany out of Poland, Japan out of Manchuria, Italy out of ethiopia, France out of Algeria, or Argentinia out of the Falklands....

Notice how in every one of these cases that the offending countries got either their asses, their empires or both, handed back to them on a platter. I'd like to see these countries try to sell their people on the idea of offensive conscripted interferance a second time.

[Wilber]

If our government became so determined to go to war that it had to force Canadians at the point of a gun, I'd be getting a gun and shooting back. Wouldn't you?

Would never happen in this country with either kind of army but if you can sell universal conscription to all regions of Canada, I'll eat my computer. There was little public support for getting involved in Iraq so we didn't. There was support for being involved in Afghanistan so we did. That's all that really counts. Why do you get all sweaty because there are people willing to do your dirty, dangerous work for you? You should be thankful.

[Borg]

Actually they're excellent examples. We definitely have geography on our side and we could easily and cheaply develop a defensive policy based on MAD. The more salient comparison we should be aiming for however is to imitate Switzerland's and Sweden's policy of neutrality and non-intereferance. This is the best defence of all.

It works for me - however you do have it wrong - to be neutral you must be very strong - military wise - are you prepared to allow service personnel to keep their MP-5s and C-7s in their homes? HORRORS!!

The Swiss do.

Canada is a pissant on the back side of a hippo - weak and weak kneed in many ways due to the people of this country and their decades of lib social re-engineering.

Neutrality is not a defence. The ability to kick the living shit out of someone who trespasses is a defence.

Canada does well with what they have - but is still not worth being counted on the wolrd stage. The Swiss and Swedes are far stronger and a force to be reckoned with if disturbed.

If you believe otherwise you are not as intelligent as you let on.

Swiss policy is neutrality - through strength. Ask any Swiss and they will tell you that to be strong you need a military and lots of weapons. Words do not defend and the speaker will squeal nicely when kicked or butt stroked.

Non-interference?

The Swiss do interfere - especially in the financial side of the house.

I wonder if all that stolen Jewish treasure will be returned?

I think you are living in a rose coloured world.

The Swiss could quite easily defeat many who might try to hurt her.

Mandatory military service?

Hmmm ..... talk the talk - prepared to walk the walk?

Borg

Edited May 28, 2008 by Borg

[M.Dancer]

Swiss policy is neutrality - through strength. Ask any Swiss and they will tell you that to be strong you need a military and lots of weapons. Words do not defend and the speaker will squeal nicely when kicked or butt stroked.

Having steep walled mountains passes as the gate to your valley nation helps too....

Swedish neutrality sounds wonderful until you learn more about thier history. Their neutrality all most cost them their soverienty during the second world war, and not being willing to come to the aid of their scandenavian brethern cost the lives of thousands of Norwegians and Danes.

Something not to be proud of.

Edited May 28, 2008 by M.Dancer

[WarBicycle]

Sweden and other neutral nations kept the NAZI war machine going. Edited May 28, 2008 by WarBicycle

[Wilber]

Neutrals certainly made the best of business opportunities arising from the war but they served a purpose for both sides. It was fortunate for the Allies that Franco stayed neutral instead of siding with his great benefactor. If he had, Gibraltar, North Africa and the Middle East would have been lost to the Allies.

[DogOnPorch]

Sweden and other neutral nations kept the NAZI war machine going.

Sweden was a pro-Axis neutral nation. They even allowed rail access between Norwegian ports and the high arctic Russian Front . Not to mention being an important source of raw materials.

--------------------------------------------------

Luck never gives; it only lends...

[M.Dancer]

Sweden was a pro-Axis neutral nation. They even allowed rail access between Norwegian ports and the high arctic Russian Front . Not to mention being an important source of raw materials.

--------------------------------------------------

Luck never gives; it only lends...

Never the less, NAZI appeasing neutral Sweden is eyeball's role model...

[eyeball]

It works for me - however you do have it wrong - to be neutral you must be very strong - military wise - are you prepared to allow service personnel to keep their MP-5s and C-7s in their homes? HORRORS!!

The Swiss do.

I have no objection to this but I don't expect this would be a feature of Canadian homeland defence. I suspect many Conservative Party members would talk your talk to voters but privately, I suspect they would worry about what America might think and back away from actually making it a policy. Given Europe's history it is not surprising the Swiss feel the need to maintain such a vigilant stance towards their neighbours. There is only one country that has ever invaded Canada and personally I can't think of any other direction from which an invasion would come in the future so a strong neutral stance like Sweden's makes a lot of sense to me. I'm concerned about what might develop in the wake of America's eventual collapse as an economic super-power, anything is possible including a government willing to pick fights with its neighbours to distract it own people from their own incompetence. We know the US military has envisioned scenarios in which it finds itself at war with Canada, but I wonder if Canada has similar things on its books?

Canada is a pissant on the back side of a hippo - weak and weak kneed in many ways due to the people of this country and their decades of lib social re-engineering.

Wah! It gets a little tiresome listening to babies cry about wussies. In any case I'll take left-wing social engineering over right-wing moral engineering any day of the week.

Neutrality is not a defence. The ability to kick the living shit out of someone who trespasses is a defence.

Not making enemies or picking sides is also a defence.

Canada does well with what they have - but is still not worth being counted on the wolrd stage. The Swiss and Swedes are far stronger and a force to be reckoned with if disturbed.

Have you ever noticed they also don't give a rats ass about being counted on the world stage? These are very smart people. There is a lot to be said for keeping a low profile in a world of trouble. Perhaps if Conservatives approached the issue of defence based on the Swiss or Swedish model you'd start getting some real traction with the people its competing for with Liberals. I'm a raging pinko in your books but look at what I'm proposing. A strong military. I'm on your side.

If you believe otherwise you are not as intelligent as you let on.

Like I said, I believe you.

Swiss policy is neutrality - through strength. Ask any Swiss and they will tell you that to be strong you need a military and lots of weapons. Words do not defend and the speaker will squeal nicely when kicked or butt stroked.

Non-interference?

The Swiss do interfere - especially in the financial side of the house.

I wonder if all that stolen Jewish treasure will be returned?

Yes the Swiss do have a lot to answer for don't they? How about if we use the Swedes as our example from now on?

I think you are living in a rose coloured world.

I guess that comes from living in a rose coloured country.

Mandatory military service?

Hmmm ..... talk the talk - prepared to walk the walk?

Borg

Hand in hand comrade but I'd have to qualify that by making conscription strictly for the homeland defense of our borders. I would prefer a Prime Directive - a strict policy of non-interference not just for military operations outside of our country but also for the kind of interference the Swiss are famous for and the US of course - aiding and abetting dictators. In lieu of a PD all offensive military operations would require a national referendum and a force made up of volunteers only. As for funding offensive operations I would require that war-bonds be the only means available. Offensive operations should be user pay only. You buy it you own it.

If on the other hand you're talking about Harper's excersize to wave Canada's new hard-on in the world's face, then forget it, I'm nowhere near being on your side.

[eyeball]

Never the less, NAZI appeasing neutral Sweden is eyeball's role model...

Okay f^*k the Swedes too if that's the case.

Jeez Louise...

Edited May 29, 2008 by eyeball

[M.Dancer]

How about if we use the Swedes as our example from now on?

You mean living in fear of Nazis while enabling them to rape Europe and murder your kith and kin?

I would rather be Norwegian...