A Stronger Canadian Military?

[nicky10013]

The Taliban have in the past rejected every overture for talks....they have been bombed to to negotiating table. And that is my point. I said before that a political solution has always bee in the cards and that does not preclude military action to motivate the other side.

If you think they'll actually be true to any deal they sign, well...that's your problem.

[M.Dancer]

Hungary - 1956

You forgot Czechoslovakia-1968

[nicky10013]

Given that container ships make numerous ports of call with an equal amount of inspections, chances are it would not be a routine voyage. The ability to single out a gypsy freightor, to track it and stop it is important.

Have you seen the number of containers? Ports generally only inspect containers coming off the ship and no where near all of them can be inspected. Your scenario of some kind of gypsy ship only making one stop is at best absurd. They don't need to put it on a direct ship, we can't find anything anyway and a strong military or not is not, absolutely will not, change that. Only an increase in the ability to check the cargo coming off of ships will.

[Wilber]

other than when the Soviet Union got involved in a domestic dispute in Afghanistan when did a Warsaw pact country ever invade another country?

Poland, Hungary, Czechoslovakia, Bulgaria, Romania in 1945 to name some. Hungary again in 1956, Czechoslovakia again in 1968.

Edited October 27, 2010 by Wilber

[wyly]

Gaawd, the ship would probably go up in the fireball. You bomb the knobs who sent it.

I'm sure they'll leave an address...overlooking the fact we have no way to reach potential targets, that would require permission of many other countries we won't get...

[M.Dancer]

Have you seen the number of containers? Ports generally only inspect containers coming off the ship and no where near all of them can be inspected. Your scenario of some kind of gypsy ship only making one stop is at best absurd. They don't need to put it on a direct ship, we can't find anything anyway and a strong military or not is not, absolutely will not, change that. Only an increase in the ability to check the cargo coming off of ships will.

They also inspect what goes in...and the vessel itself, its manifest, crew and so on.

Your argument that we cannot defend against an attack so don't, is pathetically weak.

[M.Dancer]

Your scenario of some kind of gypsy ship only making one stop is at best absurd.

Could you direct me to where I said it would be only one stop...can't for the life of me find that.

[Army Guy]

Here is an interesting article in the globe and mail the other day....it addresses some of the defence choices that have to be made in the next 20 years........Warning....if the 16 Bil for jets blows your mind then don't take a look at what it is going to cost you over the next 20 years.....for those weak hearted find your pills now, and remember hook the neg terminal up first to the right nipple, postive to the left, and shout clear....

Tough choices for defence

Edited October 27, 2010 by Army Guy

[wyly]

Poland, Hungary, Czechoslovakia, Bulgaria, Romania in 1945 to name some.

sure and just like the western allies invaded western european countries and stayed on as well...

Hungary again in 1956, Czechoslovakia again in 1968.

those were internal affairs and also had local support...

[nicky10013]

Could you direct me to where I said it would be only one stop...can't for the life of me find that.

Given that container ships make numerous ports of call with an equal amount of inspections, chances are it would not be a routine voyage. The ability to single out a gypsy freightor, to track it and stop it is important.

The fact that most make stops and a threat would be coming from a non-routine ship implies that it wouldn't be making stops. Either way, this is semantics.

They also inspect what goes in...and the vessel itself, its manifest, crew and so on.

Your argument that we cannot defend against an attack so don't, is pathetically weak.

So I guess since my way of dealing with threats doesn't comport with yours, mine doesn't count at all. I've said multiple times that we should be increasing airport and port security. Guess you don't like to read.

[wyly]

If you think they'll actually be true to any deal they sign, well...that's your problem.

I'd be really pleasantly surprised if they behaved themselves...IMO it'll last until the Nato troops are gone then it'll be a fight to the death...they need to resolve their own differences we can't impose a solution...

[wyly]

So I guess since my way of dealing with threats doesn't comport with yours, mine doesn't count at all. I've said multiple times that we should be increasing airport and port security. Guess you don't like to read.

the US can't do it I don't see how we can...we have no control over what's loaded in foreign ports if we can't afford the logistics of scanning every ship container leaving our ports how can we expect third world countries to manage it...

[bush_cheney2004]

those were internal affairs and also had local support...

As did Canada in Korea, Iraq, Bosnia, Kosovo, and Haiti. Try again....

Edited October 27, 2010 by bush_cheney2004

[Wilber]

sure and just like the western allies invaded western european countries and stayed on as well...

those were internal affairs and also had local support...

How many of them did we put tanks in the street and start shooting people if they decided to change their government?

[M.Dancer]

. I've said multiple times that we should be increasing airport and port security. Guess you don't like to read.

By the time the "package" is at the airport or port, it's too late, ergo, do nothing. I can read, can you think?

[M.Dancer]

sure and just like the western allies invaded western european countries and stayed on as well...

Aside from Germany...?

Never mind, I get it. USSR good, civilised world bad...

[M.Dancer]

those were internal affairs and also had local support...

Sure...when the Germans invaded Norway, they even had a local politician to help. His name was Quisling.

[M.Dancer]

If you think they'll actually be true to any deal they sign, well...that's your problem.

So now you are suggesting there can't be a political solution? Isn't that blowing and sucking?

[M.Dancer]

I'm sure they'll leave an address...overlooking the fact we have no way to reach potential targets, that would require permission of many other countries we won't get...

I bet Mullah Omar and Saddam thought the same thing.

[Wilber]

Aside from Germany...?

Never mind, I get it. USSR good, civilised world bad...

Yup, that's why the Soviet Union exploded into 15 separate countries as soon as the boot was lifted from their necks.

[wyly]

Yup, that's why the Soviet Union exploded into 15 separate countries as soon as the boot was lifted from their necks.

ya that same russia that was under never under any obligation to cut loose any of the internal republics nor did it lift a finger to prevent the Warsaw pact from disintergrating...yet you have this irrational paranoid delusion that they're after our resources...

[Wilber]

ya that same russia that was under never under any obligation to cut loose any of the internal republics nor did it lift a finger to prevent the Warsaw pact from disintergrating...yet you have this irrational paranoid delusion that they're after our resources...

Russia had no choice in the matter. The Empire disintigrated because they no longer had the power to stop it. Same reason every other empire disintegrates. The Soviet Union was no more than the old Russian Empire held together by the same means, force. No country has ever been forced to join NATO or prevented from leaving it. On the countrary, countries have asked to join, including former Warsaw Pact countries.

[dre]

Of course we need them, nobody knows what the future holds, but IMO things are not going to get better. We are sitting on a gold mone up north and mostly everyone is coming to get it. And one thing we don't need is to be fighting over this for 20 years, as in the helecopters.

If this is about keeping the North the money would be much better spend DEVELOPING IT. Build mines, wells, and towns etc. The reason its at risk is because its just sitting there, and we arent doing anything with it. Not because the planes that fly over the deserted place arent fancy and expensive enough

Edited October 28, 2010 by dre

[Bonam]

Russia had no choice in the matter. The Empire disintigrated because they no longer had the power to stop it. Same reason every other empire disintegrates. The Soviet Union was no more than the old Russian Empire held together by the same means, force. No country has ever been forced to join NATO or prevented from leaving it. On the countrary, countries have asked to join, including former Warsaw Pact countries.

Minor distinction, but worth pointing out: it wasn't a lack of power, but rather a lack of will to use that power.

[Army Guy]

Todays military is not as rosy as some may think , while yes we have had a few good years under our belt, and have somewhat fattened up , our future is looking like more belt tightening....

In a new era of deficit constraints in Ottawa, the military’s choices are stark: It must cut soldiers and military hardware or redundant bases and staff. Billions of dollars and thousands of jobs – and untold lives in future hot spots – hang in the balance.

A quote from Chief of Transformation” in June, Lieutenant-General Andrew Leslie....

Below is an article from the globe and mail which has been doing articles on the military all week, take a read, even some interviews from the airforce on the F-35....a good read...another perspective.

My link