Does Canada face any imminent military threat to its territory?

[Army Guy]

Voters almost never get a say in those decisions. And whats more we arent given realistic predictions as to he outcome, an honest cost/benefit analysis, or even a coherent plan most of the time.

I will agree with you, Voters have limited say in any decisions taken by the government, other than their vote , or their voice...Most Canadians underestamate the power of the voice...a recent example of that is that Univisty of Ottawa prof and his alligations of POW's being abused....one man got his voice heard and drove our government into action...i think a massive rally would also send a clear and powerful message...so there is a way to be heard...all Canadians have to do is use it....

Thats the problem with Combat, your plan is what you are going to do when you hit the ground....that all changes when the bad guys have their own plan....So it is next to impossiable to predict the outcome...or a cost analysis...

[segnosaur]

Umm...I assume you meant 'provoke'.

Please define what you mean by 'provoke'.

If we trade with the 'great Satan' the United States, are we 'provoking' an attack?

If we vote at all on any resolution that (for example) a terrorist group disagrees with, are we 'provoking' an attack?

If we send humanitarian aid to an area in conflict, are we 'provoking' an attack by one or both sides of the conflict?

unless you've lived in a cave you're entire life you can't be that dumb, you know exactly what I mean...

Yeah, I know what you meant.

I've also notice that you actually failed to answer any of the questions....

Is it 'provocation' if we engage in trade with "the great satan"?

Is it 'provocation' if we vote in the U.N. in a way that a terrorist group disagrees with?

Is it 'provocation' if we send humanitarian aid to a region, if some group doesn't like who we're giving the aid to?

You seem to be under the impression that military intervention is the only think that can cause others to not like us.

Tell me, prior to the overthrow of the Taliban, did you think it was OK for women to be stoned for leaving their homes in Afghanistan? You think Canada should just remain silent about that?

Tell me after removing the Taliban did you think it was OK for young boys to be raped by afghan police?

Ah yet another straw man. You really do love building those up, don't you...

First of all, you seem to be suggesting that we replaced poor treatment of one group (women) with poor treatment of another (young boys). That's not true. In fact, the abuse of boys is something that, sadly, likely predates the taliban.

From: http://www.ottawacitizen.com/news/Former+Canadian+soldier+speaks+against+disgusting+child+rape+Afghanistan/2014450/story.html

In July 2008, a UN special representative spoke out against the Afghan practise. “What I found was nobody talks about it; everyone says, ‘Well, you know, it’s been there for 1,000 years, so why do we want to raise this now?’ ”

Its a disgusting practice, and hopefully one that will be eliminated (in fact, the above article actually points to Afghanistan soldiers getting arrested for the practice.)

Fortunately, since we actually are involved with trying to rebuild Afghanistan, at least we have the chance of helping to stop the practice, whereas if we just stat at home in Canada our ability to intervene is severely limited.

So, once again, why don't you answer the question: prior to the overthrow of the Taliban, did you think it was OK for women to be stoned for leaving their homes in Afghanistan?

What if North Korea decides to invade the south. Should Canada be silent if Kim Jong Il decides he wants to control both the north and south?

you're in fantasy land, Little Red and the Big Bad Wolf is for children...

Not sure why exactly you would think its 'fantasy land' to think there might be a military conflict between North and South Korea... recall the sinking of a South Korean sub earlier this year.

Afghanistan did not attack anyone that was Osama and A Q

Yes, and al Quaeda was using Afghanistan as a base of operations, operating with impunity. The Taliban was not going to stop them.

...until 911 the largest death toll from terrorist attacks was by a terrorist organization based in Canada is Canada a failed state?

Ummm... the fact that some attacks come from stable states does not mean that all attacks come from stable states. Different threats call for different tools/tactics. Use traditional police/spy techniques to handle threats in western, modernized countries, use military force to handle threats coming areas outside the reach of "law".

... do we buy F-35's to bomb Vancouver?.

As I've said multiple times before, when necessary you use the appropriate tool in the appropriate situation.

Umm... why are you assuming that one method of fighting terrorism (the police) can be done in isolation without the other (i.e. military action)?

Umm...because it can...

Nope, it can't. bin Laden was out of reach of the police in the U.S. The Taliban was not going to turn him over.

And that's just one example. I can point to many more...

- Milošević was not arrested despite some horrible human rights abuses until after NATO military action

- Thousands of people were slaughtered in Rwanda.

.you see reds under beds, terroists flying advanced fighters, and failed states invading our arctic, PARANOIA!...

you have no response to the truth...

I have plenty of response for the truth... just haven't seen much from you.

Perhaps you don't know what a "straw man" is. A "straw man" is when you attack someone not by attacking their actual claims, but on made-up claims that you falsely assign to them.

At no point have I said that terrorists will fly advanced fighters or invade our arctic. What you are doing is creating a 'straw man' when you say I did.

What I did point out is that:

- Advanced fighter planes (e.g. the F-35) will be helpful if we need to engage in military action against ground targets, should we decide to engage in roles similar to Afghanistan/Kosovo.

- Fighter plans will also be necessary if we should we find it necessary to express our claims over arctic territory against other modern nations. Our actions in, for example, the Turbot war are a prime example of that. With the possibility of a 'clear' northwest passage and potential oil discoveries in the maritime areas, the ability to defend such areas becomes important. Or do you magically think that every country will automatically accept any claims we make just because we say "pretty please"

- Planes are still needed in an interceptor role. No, not because I expect bin Laden to put together an air force, but because situations like 9/11 may happen again.

Nobody here has claimed bin Laden was putting together his own air force. We did give several possible scenarios that we can and should protect against, where military capability has some importance.

paranoid fantasyland scenarios, about as realistic as needing to protect ourselves from alien invasion...

So, what you're saying is that 9/11 didn't happen, and that there was no need for the U.S. to scramble planes on that day in an attempt to intercept airliners?

So what you're saying is that from here on in, there will be no more people attempting genocide or other horrible rights abuses that need to be stopped militarily, and we just have to say "pretty please"?