How Canadians view our military

Smallc · September 25, 2009

We need about seven or eight hundred of them.

Says who? You? We didn't buy 20 or 30 or 40. We bought a couple hundred, we bought tanks, and we are currently renewing our ground fleet. We're buying more of what we need, but the money doesn't come from a bottomless pit. You and I are willing to pay more, but most aren't, and that's a reality that we have to live with. The LAV is used less on the ground for patrols than in the past, but there are some jobs that it's quite good at. Unfortunately, because we move around so much on the ground, sometimes we get into a situation where the LAV was used and wasn't enough.

Machjo · September 25, 2009

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.

Then maybe this could be a good thing. Do we really want such a keener going out and expressing his hatred through an automatic rifle? I remember a friend tell me how her neighbour's son had joined the military saying that he was looking forward to 'kill myself a raghead'! :unsure:

I'm sure you remember Somalia years back when a Canadian soldier killed a man stealing some food. An international force would likley keep such bigtos out for th every reasons you mentioned above, thus attracting those who don't mind going off to Zambia to serve under a Bolivian General, for a number of reasons:

1. If he is training in Zambia, it would not be under Zambian authority but UN authority, with Zambia doing nothing more than lend the land to the UN.

2. The Bolivian general would be Bolivian by birth perhaps, or by citizenship, but would be under UN, not Bolivian government, authority.

I thought these points would have been obvious.

waldo · September 25, 2009

are you trying to say (1) Resolution 1441 did not dictate the need for the U.S./UK, upon the report of paragraphs 4 & 11, to return to the UNSC (to gain for force authorization)?, or are you saying (2) the subsequent return to the UNSC from notice of a reported Resolution 1441 (paragraphs 4 & 11), was not to solicit a force authorization resolution from the UNSC?
if "(2)", please detail exactly what was the intent of the failed U.S./UK draft resolution - the draft resolution that only gained 4 of the required 9 UNSC member votes.

(2) Political expediancy. It would have been nice, but like white wall tires, they aren't needed to make the car go.
Now see if you can (i expect since you have avoided it , you can't..so sad too bad) answer my question.

Your question has been answered, several times, in several ways… by implication, your above answer to my question adds further damning evidence – to say the least. Yes, clearly as you say, some war proponents did view the need for an explicit UNSC Resolution authorizing force – as “political expediency”. Of those, we can start with Bush himself, as he and his admin worked to lay the invasion groundwork… at the March 6, 2003 press conference, a Bush response was a clear repudiation of the UN Charter governing the use of force – a governance framed in international law:

Bush was asked whether the United States would be seen as defiant of the United Nations if it launched a war against Iraq without explicit authorization from the Security Council. “As we head into the 21st century, when it comes to our security, we really don’t need anybody’s permission,” the President replied.

Specifically to the U.S./UK draft resolution… that “politically expedient” pursuit of an actual UNSC resolution authorizing force against Iraq:

…the draft resolution's cosponsors realized that the majority in the Council was against a text authorizing the use of force. "This is the position of the huge majority on the Council. During the last days members of the Council repeatedly stated that, and it is a majority in the Council, that it would not be legitimate to authorize the use of force now while the inspections set up by the resolution are producing results," he said.
"And now I understand that the cosponsors made some bilateral consultations last night and this morning and the result is that the majority of the Council confirms that they do not want to authorize the use of force. The majority considers that it would not be legitimate."

So, again... your assertion is false - there was no UNSC Resolution to authorize force against Iraq... to substantiate the illegal U.S. invasion of the sovereign country of Iraq. Not Resolution 1441 - not any UNSC Resolution.

bush_cheney2004 · September 25, 2009

....So, again... your assertion is false - there was no UNSC Resolution to authorize force against Iraq... to substantiate the illegal U.S. invasion of the sovereign country of Iraq. Not Resolution 1441 - not any UNSC Resolution.

Nonsense...there was such a UNSC Resolution...it just didn't get enough votes ! :lol:

http://www.casi.org.uk/info/undocs/scres/2...030307draft.pdf

waldo · September 25, 2009

Nonsense...there was such a UNSC Resolution...it just didn't get enough votes !
http://www.casi.org.uk/info/undocs/scres/2...030307draft.pdf

the resolution I keep referring to as "DRAFT"... technically speaking... was withdrawn and never voted on - withdrawn by the co-sponsors (U.S./UK) when they realized only 4 of the 15 member UNSC would actually vote to accept the draft resolution and authorize the use of force against Iraq.

bush_cheney2004 · September 25, 2009

the resolution I keep referring to as "DRAFT"... technically speaking... was withdrawn and never voted on - withdrawn by the co-sponsors (U.S./UK) when they realized only 4 of the 15 member UNSC would actually vote to accept the draft resolution and authorize the use of force against Iraq.

No matter...the US Congress was more than happy to provide their own Resolution in 2002....that trumps the UN when it comes to American invasions. :lol:

waldo · September 25, 2009

No matter...the US Congress was more than happy to provide their own Resolution in 2002....that trumps the UN when it comes to American invasions.

regrettably, all too true... in the face of that deadly Iraq force bearing down on your borders - that "imminent threat" to your very way of life!!!

As we head into the 21st century, when it comes to our security, we really don’t need anybody’s permission

But hey now! Did you see the new guy at the UN today - where Obama sat as chairman of the Security Council — a first for an American president! Could this truly be the end to American "cowboy diplomacy"? :lol:

bush_cheney2004 · September 25, 2009

regrettably, all too true... in the face of that deadly Iraq force bearing down on your borders - that "imminent threat" to your very way of life!!!

You mean like Canada invading Haiti !? Or bombing Serbs? Or bombing Iraqis (1991)? Or.......

But hey now! Did you see the new guy at the UN today - where Obama sat as chairman of the Security Council — a first for an American president! Could this truly be the end to American "cowboy diplomacy"?

No.....just wait and see.

xul · September 25, 2009

If it's all Bush's fault for pulling out so early, how do you think a return to peacekeeping is going to solve the problem? Just how would that work if the problem exists because Bush ended the fighting there too early?

I think the real answer isn't relative to Bush's fault or peacekeeping. It is just relative to the fact that America no longer shares as many interests with its allies nowaday as it did during the Cold War.

The other cause is----please allow me to crack a joke to explain it:

Uncle Sam is a capitalist running a big corporation named NATO and holds the biggest share of the company. When everything of his business was OK, there were a lot of little shareholders named British, German, France, Japan and of course Canada telephoned him everyday asking to increase their shares in the company.

One day, the economic depression struck and Uncle Sam had some financial problem. At first, Uncle Sam didn't take it seriously. There were so many little shareholders willingly to plunge money to the company, what did he need to worry about?

But when he picked up the handle to call his shareholders, he found he really had something to worry about----because the replies were all the same----"sorry, my old friend. Our policy is not to put more money into a business which seems like financially unwinnable..."

Ironically, when Uncle Sam didn't need money, he got a lot of shareholders trying to increase their shares. Now he really needs money, but he can not sell any share to anyone. :rolleyes:

Edited September 25, 2009 by xul

Wild Bill · September 25, 2009

I think the real answer isn't relative to Bush's fault or peacekeeping. It is just relative to the fact that America no longer shares as many interests with its allies nowaday as it did during the Cold War.
The other cause is----please allow me to crack a joke to explain it:

Uncle Sam is a capitalist running a big corporation named NATO and holds the biggest share of the company. When everything of his business was OK, there were a lot of little shareholders named British, German, France, Japan and of course Canada telephoned him everyday asking to increase their shares in the company.

One day, the economic depression struck and Uncle Sam had some financial problem. At first, Uncle Sam didn't take it seriously. There were so many little shareholders willingly to plunge money to the company, what did he need to worry about?

But when he picked up the handle to call his shareholders, he found he really had something to worry about----because the replies were all the same----"sorry, my old friend. Our policy is not to put more money into a business which seems like financially unwinnable..."

Ironically, when Uncle Sam didn't need money, he got a lot of shareholders trying to increase their shares. Now he really needs money, but he can not sell any share to anyone.

I think you are being too kind to the NATO partners. I have a simpler explanation.

Ever since the end of WWII many european countries viewed belonging to NATO as a way to get the USA to pay for their own defence! This worked for over half a century, until things grew so expensive in handling certain conflicts that the USA started asking its partners for some REAL contribution!

Now we see the true national character of some of those 'partners'. They are cheap moochers, nothing more!

M.Dancer · September 25, 2009

.
I thought these points would have been obvious.

I'm sorry I haven't been granted access to your land of make believe.

M.Dancer · September 25, 2009

So, again... your assertion is false - there was no UNSC Resolution to authorize force against Iraq... to substantiate the illegal U.S. invasion of the sovereign country of Iraq. Not Resolution 1441 - not any UNSC Resolution.

Really? I already shown where 1441 offers the threat of force. Then see if you can find in 1441 where a further resolution is needed. Until then please snivil elsewhere, this is the wrong thread.

September 25, 2009

Ever since the end of WWII many european countries viewed belonging to NATO as a way to get the USA to pay for their own defence! This worked for over half a century, until things grew so expensive in handling certain conflicts that the USA started asking its partners for some REAL contribution!
Now we see the true national character of some of those 'partners'. They are cheap moochers, nothing more!

Thank you for that insight.

It's nice to know that some people remember the contributions that the U.S. has made; it gets a little tiring hearing about how 'horrible' we are (as everyone else, evidently, is morally wonderful). Seems there are a number of 'fair weather friends' out there, which, as you said, doesn't say much for them.

eyeball · September 25, 2009

Ever since the end of WWII many european countries viewed belonging to NATO as a way to get the USA to pay for their own defence! This worked for over half a century, until things grew so expensive in handling certain conflicts that the USA started asking its partners for some REAL contribution!

As I recall, the US told Canada it could stand down because they would protect us.

Handling certain conflicts? Cleaning up after they started them you mean.

Edited September 25, 2009 by eyeball

Jerry J. Fortin · September 25, 2009

1441 was a cookie cutter for future use. It COULD be used to create a standing army.

waldo · September 25, 2009

So, again... your assertion is false - there was no UNSC Resolution to authorize force against Iraq... to substantiate the illegal U.S. invasion of the sovereign country of Iraq. Not Resolution 1441 - not any UNSC Resolution.
Really? I already shown where 1441 offers the threat of force. Then see if you can find in 1441 where a further resolution is needed. Until then please snivil elsewhere, this is the wrong thread.

You've shown nothing of the sort

13. Recalls, in that context, that the Council has repeatedly warned Iraq that it will face serious consequences as a result of its continued violations of its obligations

You continue the/your charade by suggesting those 3 words, "face serious consequences", gave the authorization for the invasion of Iraq, when:

- the preceding paragraph 12 directs the Security Council "convene immediately upon receipt of a report in accordance with paragraphs 4 or 11 above, in order to consider the situation and the need for full compliance with all of the relevant Council resolutions in order to secure international peace and security"

- when U.S./UK Ambassadors gave absolute assurances that 1441 offered no "hidden triggers" and no "automaticity" with respect to the use of force

- when, lacking force authorization, U.S./UK Ambassadors drafted a resolution seeking force authorization - which was not accepted by the UNSC

- when, numerous UNSC members stated, unequivocally, 1441 provided no force authorization... and they were not accepting to the subsequent draft resolution presuming to solicit force authorization... that the required number of UNSC members in favour of force against Iraq did not exist.

Those 3 words within 1441, "face serious consequences", offer no clear and unambiguous authorization for force against Iraq. Notwithstanding that nothing in 1441 allows anyone/anybody other than the UNSC to determine the measure of force to be taken and at what point/date the final ultimatum for Iraq can be decided. 1441 certainly does not authorize cowboy Bush to set the date of the final ultimatum, to determine that the ultimatum has not been met and to deploy a full scale invasion against Iraq. Nothing in 1441 allows Bush or anyone... to do that.

The language has to be clear and precise - how could it be anything but... why should it be anything but - clear and precise. That is exactly why the U.S./UK returned back to the UNSC seeking those clear and precise words to authorize force... at that point - at that time... the UNSC was not prepared to offer it's authorization for force to be exercised against Iraq.

So, again... your assertion is false - there was no UNSC Resolution to authorize force against Iraq... to substantiate the illegal U.S. invasion of the sovereign country of Iraq. Not Resolution 1441 - not any UNSC Resolution.

M.Dancer · September 25, 2009

So you can't find what I asked?

Okay then. I will take that point.

Try to find.....where it says in 1441...

Notwithstanding that nothing in 1441 allows anyone/anybody other than the UNSC to determine the measure of force to be taken and at what point/date the final ultimatum for Iraq can be decided.

No?

Okay I will take that point too.

I think we can stop now. You are pointless. Mind you, you emote well.

M.Dancer · September 25, 2009

The language has to be clear and precise - how could it be anything but...

Because you feel it should be?

That's nice. (pats waldo on the head) I would like to say this in the most diplomatic way possible.

That's nice and so very special :lol:

waldo · September 25, 2009

1441 was a cookie cutter for future use. It COULD be used to create a standing army.

aside from your suggestion being incorrect (by the language of 1441), there is absolute specificity throughout it... including the specificity of ambiguity surrounding the 3 words that Dancer wants to hang his hat around... that Dancer wants to use to substantiate the hundreds of thousands killed by the immoral and illegal invasion of Iraq... that Dancer wants to attribute to the further destabilizing of the Middle East... that........

M.Dancer · September 25, 2009

the preceding paragraph 12 directs the Security Council "convene immediately upon receipt of a report in accordance with paragraphs 4 or 11 above, in order to consider the situation and the need for full compliance with all of the relevant Council resolutions in order to secure international peace and security"

Gosh?Are saying they didn't convene?

Are you really really sure? Do you know by any chance what days they didn't convene?

waldo · September 25, 2009

The language has to be clear and precise - how could it be anything but... why should it be anything but - clear and precise.

Because you feel it should be?

That's nice. (pats waldo on the head) I would like to say this in the most diplomatic way possible.

That's nice and so very special

I can understand why you personally would revel in uncertainty and ambiguity to cloud your agenda; however, diplomacy deals in absolutes and the preciseness of words. Resolution 1441 didn't provide that absolute, precise wording to authorize force... as much as you want to trivialize the subsequent draft resolution seeking force authorization (calling it "political expediency"), there is also an absolute preciseness to the particulars behind that draft resolution scenario. I've asked you once previously if you'd like to take that dance, Dancer? So, again... would you like to head down the absolute and precisely documented and narrated particulars behind the inner workings of the U.S./UK attempting to gain sufficient votes for that draft resolution - the draft resolution seeking the force authorization that doesn't exist within 1441. Would you like to dance there, Dancer?

M.Dancer · September 25, 2009

I can understand why you personally would revel in uncertainty and ambiguity to cloud your agenda; however, diplomacy deals in absolutes and the preciseness of words. Resolution 1441 didn't provide that absolute, precise wording to authorize force... as much as you want to trivialize the subsequent draft resolution seeking force authorization (calling it "political expediency"), there is also an absolute preciseness to the particulars behind that draft resolution scenario. I've asked you once previously if you'd like to take that dance, Dancer? So, again... would you like to head down the absolute and precisely documented and narrated particulars behind the inner workings of the U.S./UK attempting to gain sufficient votes for that draft resolution - the draft resolution seeking the force authorization that doesn't exist within 1441. Would you like to dance there, Dancer?

Is there any reason for you to flog the dead horse. I have already shown that you are pointless.

If you want a do over, show in....absolutes and precisness of words...where a further resolution was needed.

Speaking of preciseness...

face serious consequences

That's diplomatic language. It means serious consequences. Like ...umm....the use of force....the same way the UN authorized use of force to police the no fly zones. How that use of force is applied is up to those applying.

M.Dancer · September 25, 2009

... would you like to head down the absolute and precisely documented and narrated particulars behind the inner workings of the U.S./UK attempting to gain sufficient votes for that draft resolution - the draft resolution seeking the force authorization that doesn't exist within 1441. Would you like to dance there, Dancer?

You mean the one that would have been nice politically but not needed legally?

I will take that point too...

You are still pointless.

Jerry J. Fortin · September 25, 2009

aside from your suggestion being incorrect (by the language of 1441), there is absolute specificity throughout it... including the specificity of ambiguity surrounding the 3 words that Dancer wants to hang his hat around... that Dancer wants to use to substantiate the hundreds of thousands killed by the immoral and illegal invasion of Iraq... that Dancer wants to attribute to the further destabilizing of the Middle East... that........

Do you really think for a mere second that these resolutions are not hand crafted to have use sometime in the future, in another situation? Get a grip, this is international politics, not backwater municipal posturing. This a the biggest ballgame on the planet!

The UN is stuffed with appointed representatives to act according to the whims of the governments of the day. They are political operatives cognizant of not mere diplomatic tactics, but instead skilled professionals who can sweet talk a gang banger out of their own knife. The UN is a big boys game of the highest order. You are delusional to think otherwise.

bush_cheney2004 · September 26, 2009

aside from your suggestion being incorrect (by the language of 1441), there is absolute specificity throughout it... including the specificity of ambiguity surrounding the 3 words that Dancer wants to hang his hat around... that Dancer wants to use to substantiate the hundreds of thousands killed by the immoral and illegal invasion of Iraq... that Dancer wants to attribute to the further destabilizing of the Middle East... that........

This is even more bizzare.....are you suggesting that an explicit UNSC resolution would "substantiate" the same? LOL!!!! :lol: