olp1fan Posted November 29, 2011 Report Share Posted November 29, 2011 There are well over 100 armed conflicts in the world today, and 99 % of them "we" as in Canada decide to due nothing....Sticking your head in the sand is "never" the right thing to do...and evently it will come back and bite someone... Canada doesn't have the time, equipment, nor the money to be the worlds police man...do you want us 13 trillion in debt or something? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Army Guy Posted November 29, 2011 Report Share Posted November 29, 2011 Correct me if i'm wrong but we are part of larger Military pacts are we not....and we could deploy troops and equipment comparable to our size.... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WWWTT Posted November 29, 2011 Report Share Posted November 29, 2011 Correct me if i'm wrong but we are part of larger Military pacts are we not....and we could deploy troops and equipment comparable to our size.... Ya actually when is this larger military pact going to actually do something for Canada? WWWTT Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Manny Posted November 29, 2011 Report Share Posted November 29, 2011 The US does the work of the West in trying to stabilize third world shitholes so that the West can import the resources it needs. If the US stopped, then other western nations would have to step up their own activities in this regard. Good people want to be ethical consumers. We want to live a good life, but not at the expense of creating hardship for others. That is the struggle, and it will take a while to find a happy medium, balance so that our system is prosperous without the need for manipulating others/ depending on their poverty. This weighs on the conscience of consumers. Those that have a conscience. Those that do not are like dinosaurs and will eventually be extinct. Because the system simply cannot progress using the old methods. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Army Guy Posted November 29, 2011 Report Share Posted November 29, 2011 Ya actually when is this larger military pact going to actually do something for Canada? There are trade offs all the time, Your not going to tell me in the last 50 years we have been pulling our wieght in regards to any of our defensive pacts are you. (Afghanistan is the exception) All one has to do is look at our pact with the US, then look at who foots the bills or most of it... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Army Guy Posted November 29, 2011 Report Share Posted November 29, 2011 Thats a false choice. Most of the intel analysis paints the exact opposite picture. That "killing them over there" actually makes it more likely they will be "killing us over here" at some point. Seen any terrorist downtown montreal yet...guess we still making the right choice Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GostHacked Posted November 29, 2011 Report Share Posted November 29, 2011 Seen any terrorist downtown montreal yet...guess we still making the right choice Red Herring. I could say this rock I have in my hand prevents terrorism in Montreal. But Montreal already had terrorists. They were the FLQ, and they were homegrown. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Army Guy Posted November 29, 2011 Report Share Posted November 29, 2011 Red Herring. I could say this rock I have in my hand prevents terrorism in Montreal. But Montreal already had terrorists. They were the FLQ, and they were homegrown. When was the last time you drove any where in Canada and seen signs of conflict...when was the last time a suicide bomber blew up a market in Canada...or an F-18 dropping bombs in a town near you...we are over there so you don't have to live through that...It's not a red hearing, it's reality... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WWWTT Posted November 29, 2011 Report Share Posted November 29, 2011 we are over there so you don't have to live through that... Thats a freekin load buddy! Heres a good relevant question for you.What was the 3rd largest conflict(possibly the largest when factoring population per capita ratios) that Canada/BNA has bein involved in? Cmon Army Guy don't let me down buddy! WWWTT Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Signals.Cpl Posted November 30, 2011 Report Share Posted November 30, 2011 Thats a freekin load buddy! Heres a good relevant question for you.What was the 3rd largest conflict(possibly the largest when factoring population per capita ratios) that Canada/BNA has bein involved in? Cmon Army Guy don't let me down buddy! WWWTT War of 1812? I mean British North America was involved, 14,000 Colonial regulars and militia out of a population of roughly 150,000-200,000 people. That’s anywhere between 7% and 9% of the total population, and that’s just a rough estimate. Has anyone actually finished the articles relating to this? The Afghani Military requested air support because they received fire from The Pakistani side of the border. So either the Pakistani Outposts fired on the Afghani Forces or they allowed insurgents to fire from the cover of their outposts. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WWWTT Posted November 30, 2011 Report Share Posted November 30, 2011 War of 1812? I mean British North America was involved, 14,000 Colonial regulars and militia out of a population of roughly 150,000-200,000 people. That’s anywhere between 7% and 9% of the total population, and that’s just a rough estimate. Ya actually the population stats that I tried looking at vary wildly. What I was getting at was the American civil war.Up to 55,000 men from BNA served in the Union or confederate military. What I'm getting at is that our military should be used for home. WWWTT Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Signals.Cpl Posted November 30, 2011 Report Share Posted November 30, 2011 Ya actually the population stats that I tried looking at vary wildly. What I was getting at was the American civil war.Up to 55,000 men from BNA served in the Union or confederate military. What I'm getting at is that our military should be used for home. WWWTT How many were of American origin though? And also as per population estimates of 1861, the Canadian population was 3.17million(http://www.statcan.gc.ca/pub/98-187-x/4151287-eng.htm) thus even if 55,000 people from BNA served, it still is only around 1.5% even assuming all were originaly from BNA and none were enlisting in multiple location for the enlistment bonus. At the end of the day though, when a Canadian serves in a foreign military we cannot consider this as involvement of Canada as a nation. After all somewhere in the neighbourhood of 100 Canadian Forces officers served in Iraq during the 8 years the US military was there, but they all served on exchange to the US military commanding American Units, and Representing the United States. If we assume that since Canadian citizens were involved then Canada was involved I would wager that the argument could be made about alot of other conflicts we officialy took no part in. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Army Guy Posted November 30, 2011 Report Share Posted November 30, 2011 Thats a freekin load buddy! No, it's not, a load...I know your not advocating fighting this war on terror in our streets , so i take it you disagree with Canada taking the fight to them....What do you think Bin Ladin and his merry band would be doing today if the US had just sat down and did nothing and said we give up... where do we draw the line in the sand with people who use terror as a way of getting what they want... Heres a good relevant question for you.What was the 3rd largest conflict(possibly the largest when factoring population per capita ratios) that Canada/BNA has bein involved in? Cmon Army Guy don't let me down buddy! I going to have to go with Signals.Cpl on that one the WAR of 1812, keeping in mind that acurate record keeping back in this time was not as it is today, and i'm not sure those numbers reflect localized Militia or town defense units...nor do i think it includes Native American numbers....those numbers would push it well over 10% of the total population... According to the Cenus in 1811 the total population was only 77,000 which would drive that percentage up alot more... link I do your piont , but history has shown us that sometimes using your military only at home is not an option...Should we have waiting for WWI and WWII to spill into north america before acting...That would be a hard call, but i think in WWII's case the war may of changed outcomes with out North Americas assistance... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WWWTT Posted November 30, 2011 Report Share Posted November 30, 2011 No, it's not, a load...I know your not advocating fighting this war on terror in our streets , so i take it you disagree with Canada taking the fight to them....What do you think Bin Ladin and his merry band would be doing today if the US had just sat down and did nothing and said we give up... where do we draw the line in the sand with people who use terror as a way of getting what they want... Heres a good relevant question for you.What was the 3rd largest conflict(possibly the largest when factoring population per capita ratios) that Canada/BNA has bein involved in? Cmon Army Guy don't let me down buddy! I going to have to go with Signals.Cpl on that one the WAR of 1812, keeping in mind that acurate record keeping back in this time was not as it is today, and i'm not sure those numbers reflect localized Militia or town defense units...nor do i think it includes Native American numbers....those numbers would push it well over 10% of the total population... According to the Cenus in 1811 the total population was only 77,000 which would drive that percentage up alot more... link I do your piont , but history has shown us that sometimes using your military only at home is not an option...Should we have waiting for WWI and WWII to spill into north america before acting...That would be a hard call, but i think in WWII's case the war may of changed outcomes with out North Americas assistance... Wrong again army guy! The American civil war was and will always be the largest conflict that BNA/Canada has ever and will ever be involved in! It either directly influenced/impacted or indirectly every agriculture and industry in BNA. It even led to the birth of the Dominion of Canada. This conflict drew extreme concern from BNA for very good reason-Stability! Understanding Canadas role in the American civil war is extremely important in begining to understand the conflict in the middle east and around Asia. If we are under any foriegn threat it would be from our close proximety to the US and recently because of Harpers foriegn policy(which is a continuation from the liberals post 9/11,in part) WWWTT Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Signals.Cpl Posted December 1, 2011 Report Share Posted December 1, 2011 Wrong again army guy! The American civil war was and will always be the largest conflict that BNA/Canada has ever and will ever be involved in! It either directly influenced/impacted or indirectly every agriculture and industry in BNA. It even led to the birth of the Dominion of Canada. This conflict drew extreme concern from BNA for very good reason-Stability! Understanding Canadas role in the American civil war is extremely important in begining to understand the conflict in the middle east and around Asia. If we are under any foriegn threat it would be from our close proximety to the US and recently because of Harpers foriegn policy(which is a continuation from the liberals post 9/11,in part) WWWTT No the war of 1812 is not and was not the largest war we have been involved in. With around 8% of the total population directly involved in one way or another with the war in Europe during World War 1 and roughly 3% of the population or 39% of the Expeditionary forces becoming casualties, I think that World War 1 ranks right up there, and that’s not even bringing up financial cost. During World War 2, with 9.7% of the Canadian Population directly involved in operations overseas, and close to 1% of them coming back home with physical injuries or not coming back home at all I think it would be an understatement that it affected less people then the US civil war. After the fall of France, and with the fate of Britain hanging in the balance, it looked like Canada would be the next leader of the Allies. During WW2, tens of thousands of allied aircrews were trained during the war; Canada supported England with grain shipments, participated in the Battle of Atlantic, and arguably made the most important contribution in the Dieppe Raid in 1942. This war involved so much Canadian effort, and so much sacrifice that it is the largest and most effort consuming war Canada has been involved in. During the American War of Independence, and the War of 1812 Canada/BNA was invaded, and out existence was directly threatened by the US, while during the American Civil war, although the threat was present, the US was not likely to invade Canada/BNA because England was THE superpower at that point in time. And to add to your little issue with entanglements in the Middle East, Canada was on the terrorist hit list before we went to Afghanistan, remember when Canada was busy sending Canadian troops in poorly led missions following extremely stupid borderline criminal feel-good missions. The reason we have not been hit by a Terrorist attack like every other nation on the list, is because of the skill and vigilance of the Canadian security services and a lot of luck. Terrorist actions are unjustifiable, and I cannot begin to understand people who believe that we should pull out of Afghanistan and let them sort each other out. This are the people who poison teachers who educate young girls, have thrown acid in their faces, and yet we are accused of being the aggressors. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WWWTT Posted December 1, 2011 Report Share Posted December 1, 2011 No the war of 1812 is not and was not the largest war we have been involved in. With around 8% of the total population directly involved in one way or another with the war in Europe during World War 1 and roughly 3% of the population or 39% of the Expeditionary forces becoming casualties, I think that World War 1 ranks right up there, and that’s not even bringing up financial cost. During World War 2, with 9.7% of the Canadian Population directly involved in operations overseas, and close to 1% of them coming back home with physical injuries or not coming back home at all I think it would be an understatement that it affected less people then the US civil war. After the fall of France, and with the fate of Britain hanging in the balance, it looked like Canada would be the next leader of the Allies. During WW2, tens of thousands of allied aircrews were trained during the war; Canada supported England with grain shipments, participated in the Battle of Atlantic, and arguably made the most important contribution in the Dieppe Raid in 1942. This war involved so much Canadian effort, and so much sacrifice that it is the largest and most effort consuming war Canada has been involved in. During the American War of Independence, and the War of 1812 Canada/BNA was invaded, and out existence was directly threatened by the US, while during the American Civil war, although the threat was present, the US was not likely to invade Canada/BNA because England was THE superpower at that point in time. Nice immpressive numbers your putting up man,you make a good argument. However Canadas independance was never really physically threatened like the American civil war or 1812.And I am sorry to say man but Canadian independance and freedom is the greatest treasure we have!When that is threatened by instability and an aggresive neighbour then yes then would be the the greatest strugles this country has ever faced! WWWTT Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Signals.Cpl Posted December 1, 2011 Report Share Posted December 1, 2011 Nice immpressive numbers your putting up man,you make a good argument. However Canadas independance was never really physically threatened like the American civil war or 1812.And I am sorry to say man but Canadian independance and freedom is the greatest treasure we have!When that is threatened by instability and an aggresive neighbour then yes then would be the the greatest strugles this country has ever faced! WWWTT In my mind, an Invasion is more of a threat then an unstable neighbour. In 1770's when the US was born, the Continental Forces invaded Canada and in fact put I believe quebec city under Siege and had plans to take over all northern British Colonies. In the war of 1812, the US war hawks believed that Nepoleon was keeping the British busy in Europe thus Canada would be easy addition to the US. The reason that no territory exchanged hands was that the British although occupied elsewhere, had more trained and experianced Soldiers and Leaders in BNA then the US. The US had overwhelming numerical superiority that was offset by the numerical superiority of the Royal Navy thus they had to defend all along their atlantic coast. In the 1860's the US possesed a well trained and experianced army, but at the same time their navy was still outgunned by the Royal Navy and the fact of the matter is that the US would have lost out on their lucrative foreighn trade if they went to war, just like what happened to them in 1812-1814 where their foreighn trade went from 100,000,000 dollars(Not adjusted for inflation) to just 7,000,000 dollars a year. This single issue almost led to New England separating from the rest of the United States in 1813/1814 because most of the Foreighn trade by the US was from that region. There might have been alot of huffing and puffing, but the real danger of war was minimal at worst and non existant at best. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shwa Posted December 1, 2011 Report Share Posted December 1, 2011 In my mind, an Invasion is more of a threat then an unstable neighbour. Invasion? Pffft. Nobody needs no stinkin' invasion. I would stay and debate, but I have to get to Walmart to buy a copy of Windows and install it on my Gateway, while I eat some Orville Redenbachers popcorn and watch Criminal Minds on NBC y'all. While wearing Levis of course. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
xul Posted December 1, 2011 Report Share Posted December 1, 2011 If 24 Pakistani soldiers had been blown up by a suicide bomber nobody would have batted an eye. Big deal! If Taliban wanted help from these soldiers and their boss, they would not blown up them by a suicide bomer. Besides, if Osama was a pure-blood American, the reaction of Americans to the 9-11 event would be far more different This is just the same sort of mentality which says that Israel accidentally killing a Palestinian is a good excuse for riots, but Syria or Iran or India or Russia - or China, for that matter, slaughtering hundreds of Muslims is a big yawn of no interest. Those muslims who live in Syria or Iran or India or Russia - or China are Syrian or Iranian or Indian or Russian - or Chinese. The US does the work of the West So did the old British Empire before WW2....what was Americans doing then? Leadership has its cost Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Signals.Cpl Posted December 1, 2011 Report Share Posted December 1, 2011 If Taliban wanted help from these soldiers and their boss, they would not blown up them by a suicide bomer. Besides, if Osama was a pure-blood American, the reaction of Americans to the 9-11 event would be far more different Those muslims who live in Syria or Iran or India or Russia - or China are Syrian or Iranian or Indian or Russian - or Chinese. So did the old British Empire before WW2....what was Americans doing then? Leadership has its cost True if bin Laden was American it would be different, it would be an internal problem, but he was not American, and he did these acts for "religious" reasons. So one Palestinian life, is worth more then 200 or 300 lives in other nations because they just happened to be citizens of the nation killing them? What exactly is your point for the British? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
xul Posted December 1, 2011 Report Share Posted December 1, 2011 In 2002 the Americans bombed the shit out of Canadian forces that killed some of our boys. So following your logic it wasn't an unfortunate mistake, it is because the American's aren't our allies? My logic is to explain the difference between an ally and a non-ally. If America doesn't treat other countries as their allies, why does it think others should treat US as an ally? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Signals.Cpl Posted December 1, 2011 Report Share Posted December 1, 2011 My logic is to explain the difference between an ally and a non-ally. If America doesn't treat other countries as their allies, why does it think others should treat US as an ally? In this case, Pakistan does NOT treat the US as an ally. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wild Bill Posted December 1, 2011 Report Share Posted December 1, 2011 My logic is to explain the difference between an ally and a non-ally. If America doesn't treat other countries as their allies, why does it think others should treat US as an ally? Perhaps you are too young to remember. When the invasion of Afghanistan to oust the Taliban first was being organized, Pakistan was basically a Taliban state themselves! They certainly had been no friend of the USA. Bush needed Pakistan on side to close off that border so he basically told the Pakistan government that they had to decide - they could be an ally or they would be treated as an enemy, the same as the Taliban in Afghanistan! He also sweetened the deal with a lot of money, of course! Pakistan essentially had no choice but they were never a committed ally. That is why there have been such grievous problems with security, to the point where finally Pakistan was cut out of the intelligence loop. Too many times the Taliban fighters were tipped off and/or sheltered. So Pakistan is a special case. The west would be fools to treat that country as a committed ally. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Manny Posted December 1, 2011 Report Share Posted December 1, 2011 Perhaps you are too young to remember. When the invasion of Afghanistan to oust the Taliban first was being organized, Pakistan was basically a Taliban state themselves! They certainly had been no friend of the USA. Bush needed Pakistan on side to close off that border so he basically told the Pakistan government that they had to decide - they could be an ally or they would be treated as an enemy, the same as the Taliban in Afghanistan! He also sweetened the deal with a lot of money, of course! Pakistan essentially had no choice but they were never a committed ally. That is why there have been such grievous problems with security, to the point where finally Pakistan was cut out of the intelligence loop. Too many times the Taliban fighters were tipped off and/or sheltered. So Pakistan is a special case. The west would be fools to treat that country as a committed ally. Your simplistic narrative neglects to consider the fact, Pakistan is a nuclear power. They would not so easily be treat "the same as the Taliban in Afghanistan". Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wild Bill Posted December 1, 2011 Report Share Posted December 1, 2011 Your simplistic narrative neglects to consider the fact, Pakistan is a nuclear power. They would not so easily be treat "the same as the Taliban in Afghanistan". And It is simplistic of you to assume that having the Bomb is the answer to everything! Pakistan could sit on its Bomb while America froze its bank accounts, cut off ALL trade and pressured its allies into doing the same. Remember that Pakistan is a poor country. What little money it had was spent on developing their nuclear weapons and their military, NOT feeding their people! They depend on foreign aid for much of that, aid that could be drastically cut by an angry America. Or, they could accept a huge pot of money for becoming America's friend and pick up some brownie points in world opinion while they were at it, by pretending to be more progressive than they actually are. Or is it your contention that instead of knuckling under Pakistan could have simply tossed a nuke at Uncle Sam? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.