How Canadians view our military

[Moonlight Graham]

Poll taken has more Canadians wanting out military to return to "peacekeeping" rather than enter into a "seek and kill" mode we have in Afghanistan. BTW, I just heard on the news, that a US General is saying that Afghanistan is looking more like a losing battle. The blame has to go to Bush and his gang for pulling out so early the first time and going into Iraq. http://ca.news.yahoo.com/s/capress/090920/...afghan_cda_poll

The blame only goes to Bush because this mission was doomed to failure from the very beginning. All participating nations are also equal to blame. The philosophy behind the mission is a joke. You can't win a military victory in Afghanistan. Well you could, but you'd need about 1 million or more troops on the ground there. Since that would need the draft, it's quite an unlikely scenario...and even then it's no guarantee. Given the history of those foreign forces who have tried and FAILED to conquer Afghanistan going back to Alexander the Great, NATO thinking they can solve the Afghanistan problem the way they have been doing it is completely moronic.

I don't have a problem with the Canadian military going into hot zones and shooting their guns. However, this must be done in only the most dire of circumstances. Afghanistan and Iraq doesn't fall into this category.

[Smallc]

If you have a large country you would have to pay more to defend it than a small country. Regardless of population size.

Regardless, you still need money to pay for a military. We can't afford a large military regardless of our size with our current population and government revenue amounts. We could definitely afford a somewhat bigger military if we changed our priorities, something that I'm not sure Canadians are ready to do.

[Goat Boy©]

If you have a large country you would have to pay more to defend it than a small country. Regardless of population size.

I don't really think that we need to worry about defending our nation, our neighbor to the south will happily do it for us, not entirely free of charge of course, but free of direct charge. Beyond that, the commonwealth ties remain strong.

I don't think that is an excuse to underfund the military, they do a lot more than just kill people. Especially based on the fact that Canada chooses to send soldiers into conflict zones, and has been notorious for not equipping them properly.

Warfare isn't one of those things you can do half-way, after all, if two billion dollars spent on the gun registry is worth it to save one life, do we not owe the same to our soldiers?

My $.02

[Oleg Bach]

Go tell the Russians how well we are doing. Or maybe they should have followed the financiers of terror who lurk quietly in international respect ...yes those jerks in Saudi Arabia or maybe Pakistan..you know...our friends that put up the money to harm us....Instead we chase around a bunch of nobodys in Afghanistan who don't even know where Canada is...because we were to cowardly to face those that actually made it happen - the money guys ...but there is honour amongst thieves...our crooks and their crooks --- someone should have smacked the crap out of some of those hetro-phag Arabian Mercedes driving haters...who's ass we kiss because they have oil. As we are kissing theirs they are screwing ours.

[Argus]

Somebody has to say, I am sick of all this "support the troops" and "red fridays" propaganda, because that is what it is, military and grassroots conservative propaganda that wants endless sums of money to fight an endless list of wars.

Ludicrous drivel.

Let's not forget it was Liberal Jean Chretien who got us into this war. And the war has been nothing but trouble for Harper, distracting from his message, costing a lot of money, and causing him a ton of bad publicity as the Liberals immediately turned around to exploit anti-war and anti-military sentiment to score cheap political points. I'm sure Harper often wished he had never heard of Afghanistan. But there really wasn't much to be done once we were in it.

As for "support our troops" that seems like a pretty fair sentiment given we, as a people, sent them over there.

Much of our tax dollars even pays for it.

Brilliant! Our tax pays for the military. Got any more revelations?

I think it works as people with neutral or somewhat anti-war views are quickly silenced by questions of "patroitism", being targed by pro-war hardliners or avoid the issue because of social awkwardness.

There is no such thing as a "pro-war hardliner". Only rabid ideologues would use a brainless descriptive term like that. Was Chretien a "pro war hardliner"? Was Manley? You think it's a terrible thing to support the people we send in harms way? Why? Because you're too sophisticated and jaded, right? I mean, you'll be 20 any time now!

It sickens me. Not to mention the attitude of the military that they always know what to do and our opinion does matter.

Well, frankly it does because it is my tax dollars.

Yeah well, funny thing is that when we're talking about war and fighting, the military (DOH!) does know a lot better about what should be done than some genius schoolboy whose major claim to fame is having a high level character on World of Warcraft.

The other myth I want to debunk is Canada's military is underfunded. That is because we always compare ourselves to the US. Other middle global powers like Japan, Ireland and Austria have roughly half the share of GDP in military expenditure that we do

.

Canada's military expenditures as a percentage of GDP is 111th in the world. Comparing us to tiny island nations like Japan and Ireland is like comparing apples and oranges.

[M.Dancer]

I wasn't using GDP to compare expenses (though it's a completely valid comparison), but it's hard to deny that Japan has one of the largest economies in the world and a population more the 3 times that of ours. We don't spend much as a percentage of GDP, but we do in terms of per capita figures and real dollars. Because you want more, you point to the figure that makes us look bad, when the other two figures show that we're actually spending a great deal.

All countries that are sparsley populated and spend in around our neighbourhood in GDP will seem to spend a lot when the per capita is ised.

Per capita is great for finding out whether we have enough dentists ...or soldiers...not so great when it comes to our defense spending

http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/mil_arm_...nnel-per-capita

[Smallc]

Right

[Argus]

Don't dodge it, his question was apt. What do people who want to expand the military want? The ability to defend our sovereignty? To project force abroad?

Well, considering the first question, the defence of sovereignty, considering our neighbours (Russia and the US), the notion that Canada could raise a force being able to defend our borders from something like that is absolutely ridiculous.

No lock will keep someone from breaking into your house. But we all lock our doors anyway. How come? Well, it takes time, it requires a degree of determination to break in which doesn't exist if the door is simply unlocked, and it can attract attention when they have to break in. Such is the hope. I dunno, maybe you leave your doors unlocked.

Fact is if you don't have a somewhat respectable military no one takes you seriously and no one takes your sovereignty seriously. If they find a reason to walk all over you, they'll take it.

There are a variety of reasons one might need the military to enforce sovereignty, and fighting the Americans and Russians are two of the less likely.

No one argues that the forces DON'T need an upgrade, but people who think it should be more than a small, able, rapid reaction force in times of world peace need to define what they think their military should be.

I think at a minimum, we should have enough naval assets to make it at least somewhat difficult for strangers to sail across the Atlantic or Pacific and land on our shores without our noticing it. Whether they've got boatloads of refugees, drugs or whatever. I think we should have five full active regiments, one on each coast, one in Ontario, one in Quebec and one in the West. I think the air force should have sufficient assets to patrol the airspace in and around our borders and if necessary aid the land and naval forces in deterring aggression.

I believe we are the only major world capital which has no actual military presence, ie, aside from the clerks at NDHQ.

[Argus]

I didn't say anything about the GDP. Per capita, we spend more than the European average.

http://www.nato.int/docu/pr/2009/p09-009.pdf

Page 7.

Page 7 does not appear to make any claims regarding per capita spending. However, one interesting tidbit on your cite is that we used to spend 2.1% of GPD on the military, prior to Chretien, and now we spend 1.3%. Yet somehow, according to some of you, this is driving us into the poorhouse.

[Wilber]

Don't dodge it, his question was apt. What do people who want to expand the military want? The ability to defend our sovereignty? To project force abroad?

Well, considering the first question, the defence of sovereignty, considering our neighbours (Russia and the US), the notion that Canada could raise a force being able to defend our borders from something like that is absolutely ridiculous. Canada simply doesn't have the population. As for projecting force, Canada can already do that. Again, if people's notion of projecting force is fighters, tanks, artillery we've already got that. If you want Canada to deploy forces in the 10s of thousands, again, people have been sniffing glue.

No one argues that the forces DON'T need an upgrade, but people who think it should be more than a small, able, rapid reaction force in times of world peace need to define what they think their military should be. People can't just say, "it's not enough" and not come up with any solutions. People who do that merely use the soldiers as a political tool to win a debate which is just as bad in my opinion as not funding them at all.

I'm not dodging it. If as you say we are not capable of defending our borders, we need allies to help us out. If we want others to help us out, we need to be able to reciprocate. I agree that we can't do everything but we do need capabilities which are usefull to our allies. So what kind of military does waldo want?

As for projecting force, we are very limited as to what we can do. Having fighters, tanks etc is one thing, transporting and supporting them in the field is something else. We have made a start with the C-17's and new C-130's.

[CAMP]

I inflated the figure from 14 thousand..because my figure was dated so I brought it up to date assuming there must be more in "care' by now. As for females getting opportunities and educations - I am all for that...BUT...It is odd and hypocritical of Canada who's military was told to turn a blind eye to tribesmen sodomizing and damaging young males for life! YET - they go on about the female Afghan populace....frankly it is none of our buisness how they have their social structure set up over their - BUT you would think that they would protect the boys as well as the girls in Afghanistan...BUT we impliment our domestic policy THERE...as well as here...that being to screw males and raise females in a bid to socially engineer some new system...a system that weakens the male power and empowers the female forces...YET the whole plan will be controled by sinsister and clever males just like here...We have no right to socially engineer this primative culture - I hope they continue to resist.

In my opinion the Afghanistan mission is a failure thus far. Canadians are far removed from the situation and must realize we only control a very small area called Kandahar and even that is infiltrated by the taliban. Afghanistan is a large country ruled by tribal leaders who have their own personal armies and control their turfs. Occasionally they feud against each other but for the most part that is the way it is. These tribal leaders don't take kindly to having an army come in from other countries and attempt to control them. They don't care about Kandahar because poppies don't grow in the city. We now have a dilemma to decide. If we pull out all those soldiers lives were lost in vain. If we stay the tally grows. What have we achieved so far is limited to 5 schools that children can go to that must remain anonymous otherwise the taliban would bomb them and destroy them. We have marginal control over one city. Poverty is worst than before. I fear for every soldier and their family who goes over there. I support them every way I can because they are the pawns stuck in the middle of the situation. I fear for the women and children of Afghanistan also. But I am a Canadian and that must be the priority. We can not afford to pay for this war much longer. I think this issue should be put to a country wide referendum. Should we pull out of Afghanistan or should we stay. Let the democratic process decide through the majority.

[Smallc]

Page 7 does not appear to make any claims regarding per capita spending. However, one interesting tidbit on your cite is that we used to spend 2.1% of GPD on the military, prior to Chretien, and now we spend 1.3%. Yet somehow, according to some of you, this is driving us into the poorhouse.

A ) Yes, page 7 says exactly that.

B ) Every country, if you look, has cut spending and force levels since the fall of communism.

C ) Taxes are lower now as a percentage of GDP and health care infrastructure....everything...costs more. There's a reason that we were one of only two G8 countries running a surplus at the beginning of a recession and the only one that had been running it consistently.

[Smallc]

But I have to ask, how much is enough? $30B? $40B? $50B?

[M.Dancer]

But I have to ask, how much is enough? $30B? $40B? $50B?

I would say a 50% increase in our GDP allocation would be what is barely needed.

[Smallc]

Fine, $30B. Now, how are you going to find the extra $10B considering that we are currently in a deficit position?

[Oleg Bach]

Fine, $30B. Now, how are you going to find the extra $10B considering that we are currently in a deficit position?

So give me some names of some companies that are going to get a chunk of these monies. Does anyone know who the manufacturers are - who the distributers are? AND do you think these contractors can come up with an armoured vehicle that is not a tin can? Deficit positions do not matter much to governments and their friends in buisness...it's not their money - but it soon will be.

[M.Dancer]

Fine, $30B. Now, how are you going to find the extra $10B considering that we are currently in a deficit position?

Well, stop funding gay pride parades is a good start...

[Oleg Bach]

Well, stop funding gay pride parades is a good start...

Funding a bunch of dishonourable liars is the Canadian way. Funding and equipping honourable soldiers is not as popular in our moral relative cess pool called society that we live in..so protect the gay bumb bangers who stoop so low as to drop a bit of dope in your kids drink...and cruxify good soldiers out of sheer spite and hate.

[Smallc]

Well, stop funding gay pride parades is a good start...

In other words, you don't know. I'm sure savings could be be found, but then there is always other places that need more spending. It's not like governments don't want to fund the military.

[M.Dancer]

It's not like governments don't want to fund the military.

[Smallc]

That's why the last two governments in a row have increased spending to about double what it was.

[Oleg Bach]

If you are going to have a resourse called a military then have one..build it up with our resourses - just don't waste good men and equipment to sustain the opium trade or to enrich arms dealers by having a useless war to justify the profit taking of a few parasitic individuals in our midst. We are a defensive nation - with a defence department..and a military made to defend and keep the peace - soon as we became an offensive force - that was the day we became American and wage war for profit and adventure..This must stop...WE ARE CANADIANS...we are noble..we are not white trash Americans who drink blood like water.

[M.Dancer]

That's why the last two governments in a row have increased spending to about double what it was.

That's because SeaKings falling out of the sky coupled with Korean war vintage artillery was getting embarrassing. Oh...and that we are at war....

[Oleg Bach]

Afghanistan is an insult. It is like saving the crack head on the corner from starvation and once he is strong he robs your house.

[Smallc]

That's because SeaKings falling out of the sky coupled with Korean war vintage artillery was getting embarrassing. Oh...and that we are at war....

The procurements often have nothing to do with the actual budget. They are often public works items. Military core funding has nearly doubled. Some procurements come out of there, but others are separate. As for the Sea King, well, the last crash was in 2003.