Jump to content

CANADA'S LITTLE MILITARY


jay74

Recommended Posts

they where used english ship, unused already obsolete english ship or brand new?

What were?

The only "used" ships our Navy has, are four 10-15 year old ex-RN subs..........and we payed under 1 billion for four.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

i mean rediuce peacekeeping for a while the time we buy new stuff and train our troop for that. but peacekeeping will problably be the only purpose of our army.

I dont agree with naval forces. we will buy 10 tiny unequiped ship and it will cost how much ? 10-20 billions ?. And a ship is not that usefull for peace keeping.

Thats why i think the infantry should be one who receive the best equipment and training. Maybe air if we want a defensive army but we should specialize in infantry for a light special force and peace keeping kind of army, and the infantry is the most dangerous job in military, they should be equiped proprely.

I totaly agree with you, I think well equiped and well trained soldiers is what Canada needs, it would be cheaper then buying helicopters, airplanes or ships, but more effective for the peacekeeper role Canada plays. It is soemthing Canada coudl afford, while not having to cut back are current programs to be able to do it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I totaly agree with you, I think well equiped and well trained soldiers is what Canada needs, it would be cheaper then buying helicopters, airplanes or ships, but more effective for the peacekeeper role Canada plays. It is soemthing Canada coudl afford, while not having to cut back are current programs to be able to do it.

And what of our Armed Forces number one role........................fighting a frigging war?

No need for a Navy?

West said ports and strategic sea lanes like the Malacca Straits, the Strait of Hormuz and the Strait of Gibraltar posed the biggest risks as ships stack up in large numbers.

Over the last three years, the majority of our Navy has been in and around the Straits of Hormuz fighting the WAR ON TERROR.......Are you now saying that the men and women of our Navy are not playing an effective role?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I totaly agree with you, I think well equiped and well trained soldiers is what Canada needs, it would be cheaper then buying helicopters, airplanes or ships, but more effective for the peacekeeper role Canada plays. It is soemthing Canada coudl afford, while not having to cut back are current programs to be able to do it.

And what of our Armed Forces number one role........................fighting a frigging war?

No need for a Navy?

West said ports and strategic sea lanes like the Malacca Straits, the Strait of Hormuz and the Strait of Gibraltar posed the biggest risks as ships stack up in large numbers.

Over the last three years, the majority of our Navy has been in and around the Straits of Hormuz fighting the WAR ON TERROR.......Are you now saying that the men and women of our Navy are not playing an effective role?

I never said we didn't need a navy, I said for the money well equiped and trained ground troops costless and be best suited for Canada's role in the world. It is not to say the Navy is not doing it Job or playing an effective role, if you got that impression, fix it because it is not what I meant and it is not what I said. This however does not mean we must go out and buy a bunch of ships to make our Navy work. A few new ships, a bit of modernization and impovements to the coastguard is really what Canada can realisticly afford. When we talk about the army, we must be realists and look at what we can realisticly afford, and what is the best way to sped our dollar, I belive we would get a high return on ground troops.

2. What is are Armed forces number 1 role? Is it really fighting a war? Or is it conflict resolution, I see the balkans, Afgahnistan and other similar events to be conflict resolution and I do belive that a larger well trained infantry force is best suited to these occurences, you don;t here America sayign we need to recruit more ships, or planes, or helicopters to iraq, no they need people. The Canadian Army needs people, it woudl be a big boost to our troops overseas. We coudl have better rotations, are troops wouldn't be as exhausted, and they could play a larger role in the stabilization of unstable areas.

Now if Canada was ever faced with a big war, where the middle east errupted into fighting, we would be a step ahead of everyone, by having a large number of well equiped troops, we woudln;t need to send draft rookies into battle liek some countries would. We could then cut back funding to certian areas or raise taxes, which woudl be justified by the war to producing the Machines to fight the war, and if these machines would not be ready on time then their wouldn't have been a need for them in the first place, and when the battles over we ahve the troops to stabilize disrupted countries after the war.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I never said we didn't need a navy, I said for the money well equiped and trained ground troops costless and be best suited for Canada's role in the world. It is not to say the Navy is not doing it Job or playing an effective role, if you got that impression, fix it because it is not what I meant and it is not what I said.

To fulfill Canada's current role in the world, we need a larger navy then what we already have.......

So what do you think Canada's role should be? Do wish us to stop playing a role on the world stage? Do we no longer need overseas trade? Or do you wish both these things, but are more then content to let the United States look after our needs?

This however does not mean we must go out and buy a bunch of ships to make our Navy work. A few new ships, a bit of modernization and impovements to the coastguard is really what Canada can realisticly afford. When we talk about the army, we must be realists and look at what we can realisticly afford, and what is the best way to sped our dollar, I belive we would get a high return on ground troops.

What the hell are you talking about, when you say we can't afford to defend ourselves? :rolleyes:

For an Extra $130 Bucks

When Frugal Isn’t Smart

In spending on military equipment and personnel – as in most areas of life – there are bargains out there. But the general rule remains that buyers get what they pay for. Although Canada is not a poor country, it has gained international notoriety for trying to defend itself – and what it stands for – on the cheap. Consider these facts:

Canada spends approximately $395 per capita on defence.[1]

The United Kingdom spends approximately $1,425 per capita on defence.[2]

The United States spends approximately $2,000 per capita on defence.[3]

Although Canada, in the current context of international terrorism, is clearly much more of a military target than most of the world’s smaller countries, it ranks 153rd in defence spending out of 192 countries based on percentage of GDP.[4]

Canada ranked 13th out of 18 NATO nations in per capita defence spending – ahead of Poland, Hungary, the Czech Republic, Turkey and Spain.[5]

At approximately 31 million people, Canada has the world’s 34th largest population. It has the 56th-largest regular military forces; the 77th largest military reserves.[6]

As of August 31, 2002, Canada ranked 34th in the world in its contribution to world peacekeeping missions, supplying less than 1 per cent of international peacekeepers in action.[7]

Now I suggest you go read the bipartisan report......

2. What is are Armed forces number 1 role? Is it really fighting a war? Or is it conflict resolution, I see the balkans, Afgahnistan and other similar events to be conflict resolution and I do belive that a larger well trained infantry force is best suited to these occurences,

To defend Canadians and their intrests abroad........

Why do you suppose that the UN asks for soldiers as opposed to police officers on Peacekeeping/Making missions?

you don;t here America sayign we need to recruit more ships, or planes, or helicopters to iraq, no they need people.

So your saying that those "ships, or planes, or helicopters" didn't and are not playing a role in Iraq? :rolleyes:

The Canadian Army needs people, it woudl be a big boost to our troops overseas. We coudl have better rotations, are troops wouldn't be as exhausted, and they could play a larger role in the stabilization of unstable areas.

You think?

Now if Canada was ever faced with a big war, where the middle east errupted into fighting, we would be a step ahead of everyone, by having a large number of well equiped troops, we woudln;t need to send draft rookies into battle liek some countries would.

So are you in favor of Canadian troops going to Iraq as part of a stabilization force?

We could then cut back funding to certian areas or raise taxes, which woudl be justified by the war to producing the Machines to fight the war,

So you would rather send "rookie Sailors and Airman" into combat?

I got a crazy idea, how about we create a well balanced Army, Navy and Air Force, so if/when the next "big one" breaks out, we don't have to draft anybody and we don't have to send any "rookies", from any Service like we did in World War 1, World War 2 and Korea to fight a war.

and if these machines would not be ready on time then their wouldn't have been a need for them in the first place

I'm sorry, thats the dumbest thing that I've ever read on this board :blink:

I'd ask you to explain further, but I fail to see the point really.......

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I never said we didn't need a navy, I said for the money well equiped and trained ground troops costless and be best suited for Canada's role in the world. It is not to say the Navy is not doing it Job or playing an effective role, if you got that impression, fix it because it is not what I meant and it is not what I said.

To fulfill Canada's current role in the world, we need a larger navy then what we already have.......

So what do you think Canada's role should be? Do wish us to stop playing a role on the world stage? Do we no longer need overseas trade? Or do you wish both these things, but are more then content to let the United States look after our needs?

This however does not mean we must go out and buy a bunch of ships to make our Navy work. A few new ships, a bit of modernization and impovements to the coastguard is really what Canada can realisticly afford. When we talk about the army, we must be realists and look at what we can realisticly afford, and what is the best way to sped our dollar, I belive we would get a high return on ground troops.

What the hell are you talking about, when you say we can't afford to defend ourselves? :rolleyes:

For an Extra $130 Bucks

When Frugal Isn’t Smart

In spending on military equipment and personnel – as in most areas of life – there are bargains out there. But the general rule remains that buyers get what they pay for. Although Canada is not a poor country, it has gained international notoriety for trying to defend itself – and what it stands for – on the cheap. Consider these facts:

Canada spends approximately $395 per capita on defence.[1]

The United Kingdom spends approximately $1,425 per capita on defence.[2]

The United States spends approximately $2,000 per capita on defence.[3]

Although Canada, in the current context of international terrorism, is clearly much more of a military target than most of the world’s smaller countries, it ranks 153rd in defence spending out of 192 countries based on percentage of GDP.[4]

Canada ranked 13th out of 18 NATO nations in per capita defence spending – ahead of Poland, Hungary, the Czech Republic, Turkey and Spain.[5]

At approximately 31 million people, Canada has the world’s 34th largest population. It has the 56th-largest regular military forces; the 77th largest military reserves.[6]

As of August 31, 2002, Canada ranked 34th in the world in its contribution to world peacekeeping missions, supplying less than 1 per cent of international peacekeepers in action.[7]

Now I suggest you go read the bipartisan report......

2. What is are Armed forces number 1 role? Is it really fighting a war? Or is it conflict resolution, I see the balkans, Afgahnistan and other similar events to be conflict resolution and I do belive that a larger well trained infantry force is best suited to these occurences,

To defend Canadians and their intrests abroad........

Why do you suppose that the UN asks for soldiers as opposed to police officers on Peacekeeping/Making missions?

you don;t here America sayign we need to recruit more ships, or planes, or helicopters to iraq, no they need people.

So your saying that those "ships, or planes, or helicopters" didn't and are not playing a role in Iraq? :rolleyes:

The Canadian Army needs people, it woudl be a big boost to our troops overseas. We coudl have better rotations, are troops wouldn't be as exhausted, and they could play a larger role in the stabilization of unstable areas.

You think?

Now if Canada was ever faced with a big war, where the middle east errupted into fighting, we would be a step ahead of everyone, by having a large number of well equiped troops, we woudln;t need to send draft rookies into battle liek some countries would.

So are you in favor of Canadian troops going to Iraq as part of a stabilization force?

We could then cut back funding to certian areas or raise taxes, which woudl be justified by the war to producing the Machines to fight the war,

So you would rather send "rookie Sailors and Airman" into combat?

I got a crazy idea, how about we create a well balanced Army, Navy and Air Force, so if/when the next "big one" breaks out, we don't have to draft anybody and we don't have to send any "rookies", from any Service like we did in World War 1, World War 2 and Korea to fight a war.

and if these machines would not be ready on time then their wouldn't have been a need for them in the first place

I'm sorry, thats the dumbest thing that I've ever read on this board :blink:

I'd ask you to explain further, but I fail to see the point really.......

*****Starting note******

I will at the end outlay what I want to see for millitary spending so you don't get confused and go on your needless rants and waste my time.

1.Sorry your logic is off, I said we should increase spending responsible to all aspects but concentrate, on soldiers. You make it sound as if Canada will drop even further despite the fact I proposed a responsible increase in spending to the navy, and yes i would say the same to the airforce.

2. thanks for the Amo to my more men statement

the Canadian Forces up to 75,000 trained, effective personnel.
I belive i also said in some millitary thread we should start from the bottom up and hey what do you know,
WORKING FROM THE BOTTOM UP
was in big bolded letters in the report. However $130 per canadian, now are we going to take that from Health care or just tax people more? A government has a budget and 4 billion dollars more to the millitary must pre-exist, and it must be re-arranged from somewhere else or be acquired from the people. I have heard your quotes about how you don't need to choose between health care and the millitary, but ultimatley if you are allocating 4 billion dollars you must choose where to put it, and where it comes from.

3.

To defend Canadians and their intrests abroad........ Why do you suppose that the UN asks for soldiers as opposed to police officers on Peacekeeping/Making missions?

Again i proposed increasing the number of soldiers in the Canadian Armed forces, you know what the U.N and the U.S requested.

4.

So your saying that those "ships, or planes, or helicopters" didn't and are not playing a role in Iraq? 

I am saying that they are no longer playing as big of role in iraq as the basic soldier, yes. I am sayign the Humvee's are now playing a bigger role in iraq because Tanks would be to disruptive rollign down the streets of Baghdad. Not to say they don't still play a roll but in the end when you want to stabilize a country light armoured multipurpose vehicles and Soldiers play a bigger role, yes I am sayign that.

5.

You think?

yeah thats why i have been suggesting it.

6.

So are you in favor of Canadian troops going to Iraq as part of a stabilization force?
Well we don;t ahve the troops to send, which is why i want mroe troops. my answer would depend on Canada's and the U.N's role if it was a multi-national taskforce of countries working together through co-operation to provide humanitarian relief and stabilization to a destitute country, yes, but as imentioned we don't have the troops to send if the oppurtunity arose.

7.

So you would rather send "rookie Sailors and Airman" into combat?

I got a crazy idea, how about we create a well balanced Army, Navy and Air Force, so if/when the next "big one" breaks out, we don't have to draft anybody and we don't have to send any "rookies", from any Service like we did in World War 1, World War 2 and Korea to fight a war.

Again i ahven't fully specified my Idea's and in this case it is my fault, I do belvie we need trained pilots, and sailors as well, I ahve jsut been using soldiers as a multi-purpose word.

8.

I'm sorry, thats the dumbest thing that I've ever read on this board

I'd ask you to explain further, but I fail to see the point really.......

Well I have heard Dumber, and just for the fun of it i will explain.

If you can win a war before you have produced any helicopters or planes, the war has been won fast, and it has been won resoundingly, in otherwords more helicopters would have been liek killing a fly with a nuclear warhead, overkill. there was enough to strike a knock-out punch. After that helicopters roles are lessoned as well as planes and ships, so then it comes down to planing and the people to stabilize the invaded country or countries, which we would ahve, and which woudl ahve been used as ground support for the originial victory, that is my thinking, if a war can be won resoundingly with out it, you wouldn't need to contribute it in the first place.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------

Now to clear up any further confusions:

Canada has the worlds 35th largest population, the worlds 12th largest GDP and the worlds 15th highest millitary expendatures (CIA) What we need to do is make are millitary expendatures reach the same place as our GDP 12th. That would mean gradually increasing millitary spending over 4 or 5 years until we have increased it by 2.5 billion dollars, (625 million a year). I am for the millitary but I would prefer $70 per person, this way we don't sacrifice to much money from other public services but we still supply more money to the millitary to modernize it, equip it, recruit it, and train it. By the way trainign and recruiting applies to sea and Air as well. Equip it may refer to tanks it may refer to helicopters it may refer to ships, it may refer to clothing that can be washed (see afgahnistan) It may refer to whatever, as long as it falls within range of what we can afford to spend after starting at the bottom and working up.

on a side note $130 per person is an inccorect report, likewise my $70 is inccorect. Reasoning behind it is 2 year old kids do not pay taxes, so not all of Canada's population will contribute to it, the work force will. which is 16 million (CIA). Gatherign form you post, you seem to support the Idea, of $130 per person I support $140, but the report you showed supports $260. Because in reality that is what the average tax payer would paying, sure they may cover for more people. But it is highly decieving to say it woudl only cost me 130 when it would really cost me $260.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Dear Slavik44,

I am presently reading "Shake Hands With The Devil" by LGen Romeo Dallaire, and it is a very 'enlightening' read.

In Rwanda, very few nations were willing to spend any money or materiel there, even though it was one of the largest and fastest 'genocide crimes' in history.

Canada was one of the few nations to try to help, but chronic underfunding in the Canadian military and bureaucracy amongst member nations and indeed within the UN itself renders 'peacekeeping' almost useless.

As KK stated, the 'carrot and the stick' mentality is dependent on what is proffered as 'carrot'.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1.Sorry your logic is off, I said we should increase spending responsible to all aspects but concentrate, on soldiers. You make it sound as if Canada will drop even further despite the fact I proposed a responsible increase in spending to the navy, and yes i would say the same to the airforce.

What you said in responce to Bakunin was:

QUOTE (Bakunin @ Aug 6 2004, 04:29 PM)

i mean rediuce peacekeeping for a while the time we buy new stuff and train our troop for that. but peacekeeping will problably be the only purpose of our army.

I dont agree with naval forces. we will buy 10 tiny unequiped ship and it will cost how much ? 10-20 billions ?. And a ship is not that usefull for peace keeping.

Thats why i think the infantry should be one who receive the best equipment and training. Maybe air if we want a defensive army but we should specialize in infantry for a light special force and peace keeping kind of army, and the infantry is the most dangerous job in military, they should be equiped proprely. 

I totaly agree with you, I think well equiped and well trained soldiers is what Canada needs, it would be cheaper then buying helicopters, airplanes or ships, but more effective for the peacekeeper role Canada plays. It is soemthing Canada coudl afford, while not having to cut back are current programs to be able to do it.

I underlined Bakunin's relavent comments and bolded yours..............

Bakunin says he doesn't agree with "naval forces" and that they are not useful in peacekeeping, you respond by saying your in total agreement..........

In future, when you want to try and "spin" your posts with me, please go back and edit them for christsakes...........it would help your cause :rolleyes:

2. thanks for the Amo to my more men statement

QUOTE 

the Canadian Forces up to 75,000 trained, effective personnel. 

I belive i also said in some millitary thread we should start from the bottom up and hey what do you know,

What are you on about here? Remember, I support all three services.........equaly.

was in big bolded letters in the report. However $130 per canadian, now are we going to take that from Health care or just tax people more? A government has a budget and 4 billion dollars more to the millitary must pre-exist, and it must be re-arranged from somewhere else or be acquired from the people. I have heard your quotes about how you don't need to choose between health care and the millitary, but ultimatley if you are allocating 4 billion dollars you must choose where to put it, and where it comes from.

Again, who says that any increase to the defence budget must come from Healthcare or Education? Does the United Kingdom not have a Healthcare and education system due to their defence spending?

Again i proposed increasing the number of soldiers in the Canadian Armed forces, you know what the U.N and the U.S requested.

Your not answering the question:

Why do you suppose that the UN asks for soldiers as opposed to police officers on Peacekeeping/Making missions?

I am saying that they are no longer playing as big of role in iraq as the basic soldier, yes. I am sayign the Humvee's are now playing a bigger role in iraq because Tanks would be to disruptive rollign down the streets of Baghdad. Not to say they don't still play a roll but in the end when you want to stabilize a country light armoured multipurpose vehicles and Soldiers play a bigger role, yes I am sayign that.

Oh, I get it, since they no longer play that big of a role today, they once did play a large role? So why is it that you choose infantry over "ships, or planes, or helicopters" and infantry?

Wouldn't it not make sense to you that to get to the point were all that is really needed are light forces, in most cases prior, "ships, or planes, or helicopters" (and Tanks, IFVs, etc) are needed?

Well we don;t ahve the troops to send, which is why i want mroe troops. my answer would depend on Canada's and the U.N's role if it was a multi-national taskforce of countries working together through co-operation to provide humanitarian relief and stabilization to a destitute country, yes, but as imentioned we don't have the troops to send if the oppurtunity arose.

Well let's say that we did have the troops, would you then be in favour of sending Canadians Forcers to Iraq?

Again i ahven't fully specified my Idea's and in this case it is my fault, I do belvie we need trained pilots, and sailors as well, I ahve jsut been using soldiers as a multi-purpose word.

I see.......... :rolleyes:

Well I ask you this then, what would be the purpose of having trained pilots and sailors if we didn't have new "ships, or planes, or helicopters"?

You do understand that to have well trained bodies, you need something for them to be well trained on right?

If you can win a war before you have produced any helicopters or planes, the war has been won fast, and it has been won resoundingly, in otherwords more helicopters would have been liek killing a fly with a nuclear warhead, overkill. there was enough to strike a knock-out punch. After that helicopters roles are lessoned as well as planes and ships, so then it comes down to planing and the people to stabilize the invaded country or countries, which we would ahve, and which woudl ahve been used as ground support for the originial victory, that is my thinking, if a war can be won resoundingly with out it, you wouldn't need to contribute it in the first place.

Do you understand that it takes longer to train a MARS officer and a Pilot, then it does to train a member of the infantry?

Wouldn't that alone stnd to reason as to why we should have a well trained Navy, Air Force and Army?

Canada has the worlds 35th largest population, the worlds 12th largest GDP and the worlds 15th highest millitary expendatures (CIA) What we need to do is make are millitary expendatures reach the same place as our GDP 12th.

No, what we need to do, is to spend the same (percentage wise) amount of our GDP on defence as that of our NATO allies, which would be 2.2%. That figure would be lower if you take the United States out of the mix, and would equal with what the Conservatives proposed.

Only then would we be able to take on our fair share of the load of the Worlds problems.

What the Senate Commite proposes is the bare minimum needed to keep the forces alive............not to add to them.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1.Sorry your logic is off, I said we should increase spending responsible to all aspects but concentrate, on soldiers. You make it sound as if Canada will drop even further despite the fact I proposed a responsible increase in spending to the navy, and yes i would say the same to the airforce.

What you said in responce to Bakunin was:

QUOTE (Bakunin @ Aug 6 2004, 04:29 PM)

i mean rediuce peacekeeping for a while the time we buy new stuff and train our troop for that. but peacekeeping will problably be the only purpose of our army.

I dont agree with naval forces. we will buy 10 tiny unequiped ship and it will cost how much ? 10-20 billions ?. And a ship is not that usefull for peace keeping.

Thats why i think the infantry should be one who receive the best equipment and training. Maybe air if we want a defensive army but we should specialize in infantry for a light special force and peace keeping kind of army, and the infantry is the most dangerous job in military, they should be equiped proprely. 

I totaly agree with you, I think well equiped and well trained soldiers is what Canada needs, it would be cheaper then buying helicopters, airplanes or ships, but more effective for the peacekeeper role Canada plays. It is soemthing Canada coudl afford, while not having to cut back are current programs to be able to do it.

I underlined Bakunin's relavent comments and bolded yours..............

Bakunin says he doesn't agree with "naval forces" and that they are not useful in peacekeeping, you respond by saying your in total agreement..........

In future, when you want to try and "spin" your posts with me, please go back and edit them for christsakes...........it would help your cause :rolleyes:

2. thanks for the Amo to my more men statement

QUOTE 

the Canadian Forces up to 75,000 trained, effective personnel. 

I belive i also said in some millitary thread we should start from the bottom up and hey what do you know,

What are you on about here? Remember, I support all three services.........equaly.

was in big bolded letters in the report. However $130 per canadian, now are we going to take that from Health care or just tax people more? A government has a budget and 4 billion dollars more to the millitary must pre-exist, and it must be re-arranged from somewhere else or be acquired from the people. I have heard your quotes about how you don't need to choose between health care and the millitary, but ultimatley if you are allocating 4 billion dollars you must choose where to put it, and where it comes from.

Again, who says that any increase to the defence budget must come from Healthcare or Education? Does the United Kingdom not have a Healthcare and education system due to their defence spending?

Again i proposed increasing the number of soldiers in the Canadian Armed forces, you know what the U.N and the U.S requested.

Your not answering the question:

Why do you suppose that the UN asks for soldiers as opposed to police officers on Peacekeeping/Making missions?

I am saying that they are no longer playing as big of role in iraq as the basic soldier, yes. I am sayign the Humvee's are now playing a bigger role in iraq because Tanks would be to disruptive rollign down the streets of Baghdad. Not to say they don't still play a roll but in the end when you want to stabilize a country light armoured multipurpose vehicles and Soldiers play a bigger role, yes I am sayign that.

Oh, I get it, since they no longer play that big of a role today, they once did play a large role? So why is it that you choose infantry over "ships, or planes, or helicopters" and infantry?

Wouldn't it not make sense to you that to get to the point were all that is really needed are light forces, in most cases prior, "ships, or planes, or helicopters" (and Tanks, IFVs, etc) are needed?

Well we don;t ahve the troops to send, which is why i want mroe troops. my answer would depend on Canada's and the U.N's role if it was a multi-national taskforce of countries working together through co-operation to provide humanitarian relief and stabilization to a destitute country, yes, but as imentioned we don't have the troops to send if the oppurtunity arose.

Well let's say that we did have the troops, would you then be in favour of sending Canadians Forcers to Iraq?

Again i ahven't fully specified my Idea's and in this case it is my fault, I do belvie we need trained pilots, and sailors as well, I ahve jsut been using soldiers as a multi-purpose word.

I see.......... :rolleyes:

Well I ask you this then, what would be the purpose of having trained pilots and sailors if we didn't have new "ships, or planes, or helicopters"?

You do understand that to have well trained bodies, you need something for them to be well trained on right?

If you can win a war before you have produced any helicopters or planes, the war has been won fast, and it has been won resoundingly, in otherwords more helicopters would have been liek killing a fly with a nuclear warhead, overkill. there was enough to strike a knock-out punch. After that helicopters roles are lessoned as well as planes and ships, so then it comes down to planing and the people to stabilize the invaded country or countries, which we would ahve, and which woudl ahve been used as ground support for the originial victory, that is my thinking, if a war can be won resoundingly with out it, you wouldn't need to contribute it in the first place.

Do you understand that it takes longer to train a MARS officer and a Pilot, then it does to train a member of the infantry?

Wouldn't that alone stnd to reason as to why we should have a well trained Navy, Air Force and Army?

Canada has the worlds 35th largest population, the worlds 12th largest GDP and the worlds 15th highest millitary expendatures (CIA) What we need to do is make are millitary expendatures reach the same place as our GDP 12th.

No, what we need to do, is to spend the same (percentage wise) amount of our GDP on defence as that of our NATO allies, which would be 2.2%. That figure would be lower if you take the United States out of the mix, and would equal with what the Conservatives proposed.

Only then would we be able to take on our fair share of the load of the Worlds problems.

What the Senate Commite proposes is the bare minimum needed to keep the forces alive............not to add to them.

Canada's armed forces are at about 10 billion dollars and 1.1% funding. You propose doubling it to 2.2% so a 10 billion dollar increase. Which sure it sounds great but where does this 10 billion dollars come from, all I am asking is to know where you would get the needed 10 billion dollars, i don't wan't some huge 30 page report to read through just let me know where YOU would get the 10 billion dollars from.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Canada's armed forces are at about 10 billion dollars and 1.1% funding. You propose doubling it to 2.2% so a 10 billion dollar increase. Which sure it sounds great but where does this 10 billion dollars come from, all I am asking is to know where you would get the needed 10 billion dollars, i don't wan't some huge 30 page report to read through just let me know where YOU would get the 10 billion dollars from.

The Surplus and if need be, further tax revenue (Which I doubt would be needed). I'd also guess, that if the auditor general went through all the government departments, she could find some "new Liberal waste" and those funds could be redirected.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Canada's armed forces are at about 10 billion dollars and 1.1% funding. You propose doubling it to 2.2% so a 10 billion dollar increase. Which sure it sounds great but where does this 10 billion dollars come from, all I am asking is to know where you would get the needed 10 billion dollars, i don't wan't some huge 30 page report to read through just let me know where YOU would get the 10 billion dollars from.

The Surplus and if need be, further tax revenue (Which I doubt would be needed). I'd also guess, that if the auditor general went through all the government departments, she could find some "new Liberal waste" and those funds could be redirected.

well fair enough, I guess it just comes down to where we differ in priorities, while I value a strong millitary i would rather see the majority of the surplus spent on health care, or tax cuts for the middle and lower class, while slowly modernizing our millitary from the bottom up.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

We should encourage more people to join the military. And we should give an incentive, when we are on duty over seas, they won't pay income tax.

I think our best bet would be to attract more people through having a wider array of educational benifiets, I think most people don't see the millitary being a career option but if it could be temporary way to achieve an education while not going in debt. You coud attract alot of people, as well as less fortunate people who would otherwise have not had the oppurtunity. While the millitary does sort of have these programs increasing them may attract more man power.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

While I am a strong advocate of a more capable military, I have had to ask myself, what would we use it for? The obvious answers, defence and peacekeeping, are simple. Except that, considering the world situation, the primary mission, defence (I hope we all agree that defending our borders is the primary mission), is not an issue. There is no force on the planet that would consider invading Canada, all things considered.

Then to peacekeeping. Obviously this is something that means a lot to Canadians, but it also has very different requirements than simply defending our borders. If we were to design a military for the sole purpose of defending ourselves, a strong Navy is the key. Our entire nation is surrounded by water; any invading force has to pass through our territorial waters. On the other hand, if we were to design the military to be a solely peacekeeping force, then the infantry takes precedence.

The one thing that both plans require, however, is a capable Air Force. Rather than relying on other nations to transport our ground equipment around the world to trouble spots, we need to be able to do it ourselves. Rather than relying on the US's Star Wars program and NORAD, we need to have our own air defence mechanisms at home. The starting place for any modern military has to be a capable air force.

What we need to decide is which role we believe is currently more necessary: defending our borders, or peacekeeping. If we are secure enough in our beliefs of invulnernability at home, then peacekeeping, and the infantry for that, should be built up second (after the Air Force). Naturally, we cannot ignore the Navy, because their heavy transport and support capabilities are also necessary, but we simply wouldn't need the same size of force as we would on a strictly defensive footing.

Thus, it really does come down to what we think the role of our armed forces should be. Peacekeeping, or strictly defensive? But either way, we need to build up our air forces, both defensive/offensive weapons (fighters) and transport.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Thus, it really does come down to what we think the role of our armed forces should be. Peacekeeping, or strictly defensive? But either way, we need to build up our air forces, both defensive/offensive weapons (fighters) and transport.

And what if we want to maintain our current mission

set(s)?

Peacekeeping and the defence of Canada are not the only things our are armed forces do..........and as it stands now, expeditionary warfare is best carried out with a Navy......being the the majority of the planet is water and all........

You could even call it a proxy of the defence of Canada, in this case it would be defending Canadian intrests abroad.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Dear Stoker,

and as it stands now, expeditionary warfare is best carried out with a Navy......being the the majority of the planet is water and all........
Navies have been marginalized, especially for countries like Canada, to the point of near folly. Coastal defence, for Canada, is reduced to smuggling interdiction (of both humans and drugs) and for illegal fishing. A small well-armed Coast Guard could accomplish the same thing.
You could even call it a proxy of the defence of Canada, in this case it would be defending Canadian intrests abroad.
We are not like the US, where our 'business interests' often rely on supporting third world dictators to ensure contracts. We don't need aircraft carriers or 'gunboat diplomacy', because often, Canadians are fair, and can be trusted.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Dear Flea bag:

Navies have been marginalized, especially for countries like Canada, to the point of near folly. Coastal defence, for Canada, is reduced to smuggling interdiction (of both humans and drugs) and for illegal fishing. A small well-armed Coast Guard could accomplish the same thing.

Do you understand the difference between Coastal defence and expeditionary warfare ?

We are not like the US, where our 'business interests' often rely on supporting third world dictators to ensure contracts. We don't need aircraft carriers or 'gunboat diplomacy', because often, Canadians are fair, and can be trusted.

We don't need 'gunboat diplomacy'? Hows that? Are you saying that our Navies commitiment to the war on terror, well also useful, was not 'gunboat diplomacy' directed at our allies (United States)?

As I said, many times, unless you are prepaired to give up our intrests abroad or let somebody else protect them (United States), then we need a well funded military, including a Navy that is geared even more towards expeditionary warfare.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

  • Tell a friend

    Love Repolitics.com - Political Discussion Forums? Tell a friend!
×
×
  • Create New...