How Canadians view our military

[Jerry J. Fortin]

The reality is such that we simply must maintain a military until such time as the nation is safe from potential foreign aggression.

[M.Dancer]

Compare that with Harper wanting to send troops into Iraq (illegal according to Annan).

Annan is not a judge nor jury. Iraq was legal to many, who actually had the authority to make that call.

[Machjo]

The reality is such that we simply must maintain a military until such time as the nation is safe from potential foreign aggression.

But couldn't a global force allow Canada to do so at lower cost by 'sharing' a force? As was mentioned above, 100,00 well trained and equipped men might not be enough. Fine. I woulnd't support a world force more powerful than that though just to avoid too much power in the ands of too few. but I could see this force supplemented by national forces. This would allow us to ensure protection while still saving money.

[Machjo]

Annan is not a judge nor jury. Iraq was legal to many, who actually had the authority to make that call.

No, but seeing the UN opposed Bush's war in iraq, the US never had authority to attack. And since Hussain had nada to do with 9/11, it was an act of agresion. By all accounts, it was an illegal invasion.

[M.Dancer]

No, but seeing the UN opposed Bush's war in iraq,

Incorrect

the US never had authority to attack.

Ditto

[Argus]

Couldn't say if 400 is to many given that the UK has acquired just under 500....but 40 is too low.

The LAV is the wrong vehicle for the job. It is bascially an up-armoured recce/ infantry fighting vehicle and not meant to patrol mine laden roads.

The us plans to have at least 20,000 of them. Now as we're a tenth their size we ought to have say 2,000. But I'd accept 500 - one quarter of that.

And we have 40? And some people are touting this as an indication of our wonderful support for the military!

[Wild Bill]

But couldn't a global force allow Canada to do so at lower cost by 'sharing' a force? As was mentioned above, 100,00 well trained and equipped men might not be enough. Fine. I woulnd't support a world force more powerful than that though just to avoid too much power in the ands of too few. but I could see this force supplemented by national forces. This would allow us to ensure protection while still saving money.

If you are suggesting a well trained and equipped force of 100,000, are you not then suggesting a tripling or even quadrupling of what we have now and the budget that goes with it?

[Argus]

But couldn't a global force allow Canada to do so at lower cost by 'sharing' a force? As was mentioned above, 100,00 well trained and equipped men might not be enough. Fine. I woulnd't support a world force more powerful than that though just to avoid too much power in the ands of too few. but I could see this force supplemented by national forces. This would allow us to ensure protection while still saving money.

I wouldn't have a problem as long as the US and UK had vetos. But the obvious fear is that you don't want this to grow into something with millions of men, a real army in other words, able to challenge national armies - at the behest of nations like Iran and Libya.

[Argus]

Oh, and here's a good article:

http://www.canada.com/topics/news/story.ht...9f-aa03078c1f35

It's now over $20B.

First, the report's authors are notoriously anti-military. The CCPA is a very left leaning organizion which believes every dollar spent on the mlitary is a dollar wasted, because it should have gone to arts and multicultural funding, ethnic awareness events, and welfare.

And even they only say it's gone up 37%, not the 100% you claimed.

I'd have to see the actual report to see what was included, whether it included, for example, capital expenses to replenish our supply of rusted out gear.

[Jerry J. Fortin]

But couldn't a global force allow Canada to do so at lower cost by 'sharing' a force? As was mentioned above, 100,00 well trained and equipped men might not be enough. Fine. I woulnd't support a world force more powerful than that though just to avoid too much power in the ands of too few. but I could see this force supplemented by national forces. This would allow us to ensure protection while still saving money.

I would say that the proper thing to do is in fact provide the UN with an army, and let them take care of business.

[Guest TrueMetis]

I would say that the proper thing to do is in fact provide the UN with an army, and let them take care of business.

A UN army wouldn't get much done because of the countries with veto power. Those countries rarely see eye to eye.

[eyeball]

No irony here folks....."get in the face" ?? Pressure ?? So much for minding your "own business".

Please note my response was in addition to wyly's suggestions which included that we stay out of other countries internal disputes...

Thank you.

Edited September 23, 2009 by eyeball

[M.Dancer]

Please note my response was in addition to wyly's suggestions which included that we stay out of other countries internal disputes...

Thank you.

Now as well as being ironic and ridiculous, it's pure gibberish.

Edited September 23, 2009 by M.Dancer

[Machjo]

If you are suggesting a well trained and equipped force of 100,000, are you not then suggesting a tripling or even quadrupling of what we have now and the budget that goes with it?

Howso? I'm proposing that the world's nations each contribute a portion of their GDP to such a global force, thus allowing us all to reduce our national military forces. The overall reductions in national military spending would likely surpass the spending increase on the world force by far. remember that everyone would be contributing to the international force, whereas each national government would be expected to pay for its own on its own.

[Machjo]

Incorrect

Ditto

[Machjo]

I would say that the proper thing to do is in fact provide the UN with an army, and let them take care of business.

That statement is a little ambiguous. What are you suggesting? Are you opposed to a 100,000 man cap or similar? Or do you mean something else?

[Machjo]

A UN army wouldn't get much done because of the countries with veto power. Those countries rarely see eye to eye.

Then why not reform the UN if that's the issue. Besides, Ontario and Quebec don't always see eye to eye either, yet that doesn't stop Canada from fighting wars. Now I understand that there's a difference between having a vote and veto power. Fine. Ten let's just reform the UN to remove veto power if that's the issue.

[M.Dancer]

Then why not reform the UN if that's the issue. Besides, Ontario and Quebec don't always see eye to eye either, yet that doesn't stop Canada from fighting wars. Now I understand that there's a difference between having a vote and veto power. Fine. Ten let's just reform the UN to remove veto power if that's the issue.

We would need kick out those who, as Cato the elder might have said, delenda est.

Won't happen. I've seen Red Dawn, we know which way the bulk of the UN swings...

[M.Dancer]

I don't watch youtube explanations. Please direct me to the UNSC motion that either forbade the US operation or condemned it.

Take as much time as you need.

[Machjo]

http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2003/nov/20/usa.iraq1

http://www.globalpolicy.org/iraq/political...occupation.html

It doesn't appear that the UN ever explicitely declared that the Iraq War was illegal. Rather, the laws in place suggest it. For example, if I steal a chocolate bar, the government need not pass a motion stating that my act is criminal. The fact that the law states that theft is criminal and that I am committing theft make my act illegal without the government needing to pass some special motion stating that my specific act is illegal.

[M.Dancer]

http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2003/nov/20/usa.iraq1

http://www.globalpolicy.org/iraq/political...occupation.html

It doesn't appear that the UN ever explicitely declared that the Iraq War was illegal.

Exactly hence your assertion was incorrect.

Rather, the laws in place suggest it. For example, if I steal a chocolate bar, the government need not pass a motion stating that my act is criminal. The fact that the law states that theft is criminal and that I am committing theft make my act illegal without the government needing to pass some special motion stating that my specific act is illegal.

The UN Charter is not criminal law. There is ample wiggle room for a country to invoke self defence or pre-emptive defense. If it doesn't pass the political test, then the UNSC will step in...but with the US and the UK sitting on the UNSC as well as those who through self interest would abstain, it was never tables. On top of that, US law which in the end governs the actions of the US mandated the action.

As far as Annan went, his opinion conveyed the legal weight of steam.

[Wild Bill]

Howso? I'm proposing that the world's nations each contribute a portion of their GDP to such a global force, thus allowing us all to reduce our national military forces. The overall reductions in national military spending would likely surpass the spending increase on the world force by far. remember that everyone would be contributing to the international force, whereas each national government would be expected to pay for its own on its own.

Sorry, I misunderstood you! I thought you were saying that Canada should have a well equipped force of 100,000.

As far as the UN having an army, wouldn't we have problems like the Human Rights Commission which is dominated by the worst offenders ordering the UN army to attack Israel?

[M.Dancer]

Sorry, I misunderstood you! I thought you were saying that Canada should have a well equipped force of 100,000.

As far as the UN having an army, wouldn't we have problems like the Human Rights Commission which is dominated by the worst offenders ordering the UN army to attack Israel?

Who on earth would be insane enough to join? Can you imagine some young keener lining up at the UN recruitment office in Red Deer to go off to Zambia to be trained to serve under a Bolivian general?

Won't happen.

[bush_cheney2004]

.....It doesn't appear that the UN ever explicitely declared that the Iraq War was illegal. Rather, the laws in place suggest it. For example, if I steal a chocolate bar, the government need not pass a motion stating that my act is criminal. The fact that the law states that theft is criminal and that I am committing theft make my act illegal without the government needing to pass some special motion stating that my specific act is illegal.

Nope...the original surrender instruments from Gulf War I and subsequent "material breaches" are all that is neede to engage Iraq. And as Dancer pointed out, the US Congress explicitly authorized action after passing Public Law in 1998 to overthrow the regime of Saddam Hussein.

As is my custom, the UN didn't "authorize" Operation Allied Force against Serbia either (1999). Did Canada act illegally?

Edited September 24, 2009 by bush_cheney2004

[xul]

Historically it has always taken the price of soldiers lives to get the government and people of Canada to release the purse strings...what scares me is it may take hundrds more to get our military into shape...what we should be asking is why ?

Historically if any general of the military had anticipated that the war would go into today's way before September 11 attacks, he would more fit to complain his government didn't armed the troops properly.

Both American and Canadian armed forces were equiped with the weapons which were designed to defeat enemies like Soviet not Taliban then, though Soviet had no longer existed for 10 years. I remember that no one in military questioned the decision of sending such kind of troops to a place like Afghanistan in western military at the time.

Edited September 24, 2009 by xul