More Fiscal Incompetence from the Conservatives

[Signals.Cpl]

Ahh, but that’s the point………What is NATO doing for Canadian taxpayers? Don’t get me wrong, I’m not arguing against having a capable, well rounded military that serves Canada’s interest, nor a neutered foreign policy , quite the opposite in fact…

NATO ensures several things:

1) Anyone who decides to attack one country in the alliance has to worry about all countries in the alliance, and I know you mentioned the 9/11 response but there was assistance even if it didn't last throughout the whole war.

2)Ensures that we can skate by with just enough because if we weren't part of NATO, the US just might actually ask us to pull our weight, now I like you don't have a problem with this, but most people will and thats the issue.

3)Gives us military assets anywhere in the world and in an emergency any one of those nations can assist us if they are in the region might sound naive but it feels more reassuring knowing that in an emergency even if we didn't have the capability someone will help out.

No, I claimed we (And the United States) shouldn’t be in NATO………If the Europeans (Including the East) want a collective defence pact, that’s none of our business.

I think we should restructure NATO more in line with a world wide alliance as Ive mentioned before, but if the EU survives its current problems they should be given a seat in the alliance instead of every EU member getting a seat.

Certainly…….As to giving them back, I doubt it based on the condition of much of our equipment that has (or is) returning from Afghanistan.

But thats the thing a loan is a loans. Plus I don't think the Americans much care about that equipment since it ensured that there were 8600 soldiers that they didn't have to deploy.

Perhaps……..I judge said utility of the forces on the criteria that they have the ability, if required, to operate independently from American forces. (IE CAS, Tac Hel, indirect & direct fire support etc) Granted, there are varying degrees, and one could put the British at one end and Eastern Europeans at the other, with us falling somewhere in the middle.

For the longest time we had no helicopter assets in Afghanistan and I don't think we had any CAS assets either so we fall in the can't operate completely independent of the US.

Quality of training is certainly a factor, but to say equipment and the ability to employ said equipment effectively is certainly a factor…………What’s more valuable, a Canadian squadron of Centurions or Leopard II’s?

I would say it depends more on Training and leadership then equipment. Leopard II's are more valuable, but they lose their value if those tanks are operated in an incompetent manner. Badly gained and Badly led troops will lose out even with the best equipment against an equal force of well trained well led troops even with obsolete equipment or no equipment at all. Look at the winter war, the Finns held out for far longer then anyone would have expected because the much larger and much better equipped force was badly led, and badly trained, true that the Finns were eventually overwhelmed by sheer numbers but they killed, destroyed and/or captured far more equipment and soldiers then the Soviets did. USSR started with over 3,000 tanks while Finland started with 30 some tanks and soviet union lost 3,000 tanks while finland lost the 30 tanks but captured a number of Russian tanks.

This is my personal opinion, but a well led Canadian soldier with crap equipment is better off then a well equipped enemy soldiers with crap training.

Back to my original question then, is it cheaper to keep Eastern Europeans at home?

I don't know, I would assume that since most East European armies are moving or have already moved away from conscription salaries for the soldiers have improved along with the economic outlook of the country. So I would assume that although not even close to as expensive to deploy as a Canadian or American soldier they would still be pretty expensive and to add to that, I don't think that NATO is really following the practices of the UN.

Why weren’t the Germans, French, Spanish or Italians answering the call then?

You have to ask them, I am just telling you that proportionally to means some countries are offering more then their fair share while others are offering much less and you are dissatisfied with both sides, those offering all they can, and those offering as little as they can.

Doesn’t this demonstrate my point, in regards to Canadians? Many of those that shed tears here over Rwanda also cheered when the CAR was disbanded…….Kinda Ironic no?

Not when you look at the CAR, it didn't fit in to the image of peacekeepers, it was essentially a war machine when most thought that CF personnel deploy and hand out candy and flowers.

And Canada’s means? Look at the cries when the current Government purchases something for the military or talks of increasing the defence budget…….Give the taxpayers what they want.

Look at Rwanda though, Gen. Dallaire, in his report to the UN said that 5,000-10,000 well armed soldiers with the proper ROE's could guarantee the peace process, now tell me with such a relatively small contribution for such a high payout, meaning deploy even 5,000 well armed soldiers with proper ROE's and 800,000 people get to be alive doesn't that sound manageable? Canada has the means to help, not take on the whole burden but look at what we have, 3 Infantry regiments some of the best infantry in the world, the rest of the combat arms as well as the CSS are also world class.

But why?

To protect Poland, that was the reason, as opposed to stop a maniac on a world domination quest. To be fair many Canadians of the time at least the Anglophones could trace their roots back to England so there was more of a link but it still was at the beginning a European conflict that we entered, which eventually morphed in to stoping a madman who was bent on reorganizing the world in his own views.

To an extent, as I’ve said though, I don’t question the sprit of the Poles etc, nor am I really surprised by the lack of response from the larger Continental powers to the situation in Afghanistan. Clearly though, when their direct interests were involved (Libyan Oil & French, Italian and Spanish etc oil companies) they certainly didn’t seem to have a problem reacting for their best interests………What is wrong with suggesting Canada does likewise? If NATO’s purpose has morphed from European Defence, into a “drop in coalition” for intervention, why should Canada be apart?

Rework NATO, so that it becomes a strong international alliance, instead of having dozens of European Nations, have the alliance be Canada, the US, EU, Australia, NZ, and anyone else like minded.

When someone decides to attack a country in the alliance, they will face the countries military, but also the military of every other member, right now NATO has somewhere in the neighbourhood of 4.3 million military personnel(Regular and reserve) from the EU, almost 100,000 CF members(Regular and reserve and ranger) and the US brings in 2.9million members from all branches both full time and part time. Looking at those numbers there are 7.3million soldiers,sailor and aircrew in NATO, thousands of aircraft,tanks,hundreds of combat ships including almost 20 Carriers, I don't think any Nation will miss the implication of a war with one member state.

Looking ahead 25-50 years, if we are going to align ourselves with potential future world powers, both militarily and economically, we should focus on the Pacific Rim instead of the Old World….Even then, a “new NATO” is not a requirement…….

You mean ally with China and India?

[waldo]

American giant Unocal, along with a Saudi company, signed an agreement with Turkmenistan--and with the Taliban--to build a major pipeline in the region.

This was halted after the Taliban declared support for bin Laden...but was resurrected in 2002, under a slightly different consortium. That's not conspiracy theory--that's public record.

The new deal was considered awesome, because it allowed the transport of energy through the Asian Republics without any Russian interference; like much of our foreign policy, geostrategic initiatives are intrinsically tied to major financial interests. They are not separable, and thoroughly institutionalized.

yup... U.S. Afghanistan policy was driven, in part, by oil/gas interests... 'Dick Cheney's Afghanistan pipelines'...

private citizen Dick Cheney - 1998, CEO of Halliburton, in a speech to the Cato Institute: "the good Lord didn't see fit to put oil and gas only where there are democratically elected regimes friendly to the United States. Occasionally we have to operate in places where, all things considered, one would not normally choose to go.

But, we go where the business is.

"

[Wild Bill]

yup... U.S. Afghanistan policy was driven, in part, by oil/gas interests... 'Dick Cheney's Afghanistan pipelines'...

You're right in principle Waldo but I think it goes a bit deeper. What choices does the US have? What alternatives?

They have an insatiable thirst for oil and its byproducts in order for their people to have a job, eat, keep themselves warm and so on. It's all very well to call for "green alternatives" but politically this is almost an impossible sell, since so far no one has found any that are painless and can be implemented in a few weekends.

Polls may show that people think they want their country to go green but if it costs their job or hurts them financially they immediately refuse the sacrifice. This is not really hypocrisy. It's tough to stand on principles when your kids are hungry.

So if a politician tries to go down this path he will be turfed out next election! As Machiavelli wrote long ago, the first duty of the Prince is to stay in power, for otherwise he has no influence at all.

I would agree that politicians should at least try to take some slower but positive steps to get their country(s) out of this paradigm but brainpower and vision is not really part of their skillsets to get their jobs! Look at McGuinty! I'm willing to believe that he genuinely thought he was speaking truth when a year or two ago he stood up and told us we were going to replace all those lost manufacturing jobs with those making wind turbines. He just didn't have the background to properly understand all the factors. At the same time, he had Samsung salesmen crawling all over him, telling him things would be just marvelous!

You may have read in another post of mine that I took a part time job at a call centre, phoning up Ontario businesses to ask for support for various charity events. The job just ended. The provincial economy appears to be so bad that the pickings are just too poor to maintain staff levels. Anyhow, I spoke to two businesses in the Niagara Region that were based around bending thick metal into other shapes, using big machines that needed a great deal of electricity to do the job.

Over the past few years their electrical costs have nearly tripled! When I talked to them they were in the process of moving across the border to the other side of the Niagara River. They simply could no longer be profitable with the cost of electricity here in Ontario.

I really don't have much faith in any political solution to energy costs and pollution reduction measures. That is because they are inherently driven by politicians. IMHO, virtually all politicians have only an academic's perspective on technical issues. They are like a teacher who has never actually done something himself but thinks he grasps all the nuances because he has read some textbooks!

So most of what is happening now is just "busy work". Voters want to see their political leaders supporting "green" ventures. Unfortunately, most voters have no idea if any such venture is practical or cost-effective. They also never go back in a couple of years and audit any progress, or lack of it. It is mere symbolism for votes, not actual solutions.

However, I do have confidence that these problems WILL be solved! Just not the way things are happening right now. Look at how some of those European countries have had to shut down wind turbines because they could not make them self-sustaining without heavy subsidies that those countries can no longer afford.

No, the solutions are going to come from technical breakthroughs! The market desire for green solutions is quite real. People DO want a cleaner planet! They just don't want to be impoverished if they move in that direction. So technically based industries are well aware that if they can come up with cost-effective and competitive products they will be guaranteed sales and profits. I've no doubt that they have been investing large sums of money into R & D. As the fruits of their efforts come on stream we will move faster and faster in a positive, "green" direction.

Sooner or later some techie sporting a pocket protector is going to make a GIANT breakthrough! We will get clean, safe fusion power or perhaps a solar cell that IS efficient enough to be competitive. Or better yet, superconductor electrical transmission lines or best of all, a large scale electrical storage medium!

Such breakthroughs will solve huge percentages of green issues almost overnight. It is impossible to predict the actual timing of inspiration with a technical breakthrough but "steam engine time" will ensure that when the necessary base of information and research is working on something, somebody somewhere will achieve a breakthrough. (Unless it is genuinely impossible, of course!)

When these breakthroughs happen they will make all the "busy work" that went on before a total waste of time and money! Having all the men in a village put out fires by pissing on them becomes a drop in the ocean when someone invents a hydraulic pump!

[bleeding heart]

This is not really hypocrisy. It's tough to stand on principles when your kids are hungry.

Do you allow the same principle for our official enemies?

Or does it only apply to us and to our allies?

[Wild Bill]

Do you allow the same principle for our official enemies?

Or does it only apply to us and to our allies?

You are rather vague! Who are you citing as official enemies? Lists may differ.

I could assume you meant countries like China. If you had read my posts over the past months and years you would have known that I try to avoid Chinese products as much as I can. It's a real world and sometimes I have no other choices but simply avoiding WalMart goes a long way.

I have also called many times for "green" tariffs against countries like China, Russian and India which have virtually no anti-pollution costs to their manufacturing. In my own city of Hamilton I have seen the local steel companies spend millions upon millions to clean up their manufacturing processes. This of course adds to the cost of every ton of steel. Meanwhile, countries like those I mentioned freely compete against our domestic steel plants without such costs, making them MUCH more competitive.

If just as an example those "Green" costs for our plants amount to an extra $10 or whatever per ton, I would champion charging a $10 per ton tariff on steel from China, Russia or any other such country.

I also read the can labels when I buy groceries. I avoid many foreign products but especially any food that comes from China. There have been too many poisoning incidents.

While we're at it, we should get serious about all the Chinese industrial spies who come here as students.

I don't mean to single out China but I have never been able to get that picture of the brave young man standing in front of the tank in Tiananmen Square out of my head!

Does that answer your question? If not, please be a bit more specific.

[bleeding heart]

Does that answer your question? If not, please be a bit more specific.

You said it was "not really hypocrisy" and that "it's tough to stand on principles when your kids are hungry."

I'm asking if that applies to, say, the Taliban, The Soviets, the Chinese, Saddam's Iraq, Iran.....and so on.

If not, why not?

And if yes, and we're working on straight power concepts, principles be damned....then we can no longer denounce the evils of enemies.

After all, they got kids to feed, too.

[Wild Bill]

You said it was "not really hypocrisy" and that "it's tough to stand on principles when your kids are hungry."

I'm asking if that applies to, say, the Taliban, The Soviets, the Chinese, Saddam's Iraq, Iran.....and so on.

If not, why not?

And if yes, and we're working on straight power concepts, principles be damned....then we can no longer denounce the evils of enemies.

After all, they got kids to feed, too.

Well, that is answered by my philosophy of "Utilitarianism", or believing and supporting what WORKS!

We all have justifications for our actions. Sometimes we must compete against others, even unto violence if the stakes are high enough.

My principles tell me to care bout my own family and society first. Those of allied countries follow. Those of rival countries are far down the line and those of enemies are lost in the distance!

If some countries commit violence against my country I feel no obligation to care for their people. It is THEIR responsibility to care for their OWN people! My charity extends to what we can afford and to those we consider allies.

It is impossible at present to save the whole world! Especially those in countries ruled by guns.

I support avoiding violent conflicts but if they must occur, then I only care about my own country's interests! I couldn't care less who is "morally" right or if the enemy has a valid motivation. I want MY country to win and MY people to survive!

No matter what academic opinion is expressed about the motivations of who are defined as our "enemy" I still feel that it is important to stand up for and protect our own!

If someone has to die I want it to be the enemy, not us! I support any and all attempts at peace but never sacrificing Canadian lives or livelihood for abstract principles, particularly when dealing with others who would not reciprocate!

Edited June 13, 2012 by Wild Bill

[bleeding heart]

We all have justifications for our actions. Sometimes we must compete against others, even unto violence if the stakes are high enough.

My principles tell me to care bout my own family and society first. Those of allied countries follow. Those of rival countries are far down the line and those of enemies are lost in the distance!

Well, with one's family, matters are different. A country is not a "Family," whatever indoctrinaiton is attempted...but fine, an argument can be made (weakly) for "shared values," or some such thing...

But allies? Allies are a political concoction, and in most cases are committed to without any democratic will. So that's just obedience to the decisions of powerful men.

Funny, I rarely hear anyone here defending our (quite close) ally: France.

So it's pick and choose at will, I guess.

I support avoiding violent conflicts but if they must occur, then I only care about my own country's interests! I couldn't care less who is "morally" right or if the enemy has a valid motivation. I want MY country to win and MY people to survive!

If it comes to survival, yes...though if our country started such a dangerouys war, needlessly, then the leaders should be deemed criminals.

But when Canada blows Libyans to bits, it's pretty hard for you to argue that it's a matter of national survival!

At any rate, if your stance is "my country right or wrong," then we're debating from different planets, rather than from different political positions.

Edited June 13, 2012 by bleeding heart

[Argus]

My understanding of the NDP attitude towards the military is that they have been irredeemably hostile since I started following politics decades back. Regardless of what they say I believe an NDP majority would gut the military. I don't think they're at all comfortable with even having one. I believe they would do away with fighters, artillery, tanks and major warships. They see the military as a sort of local citizen militia designed for local emergencies, and I think that is all they would want it to be equipped for.

[bleeding heart]

If they were to become the majority? Not a chance in hell they'd "gut the military."

Power never works that way. Never. I can't think of a single case.

Edited June 13, 2012 by bleeding heart

[Guest Derek L]

NATO ensures several things:

1) Anyone who decides to attack one country in the alliance has to worry about all countries in the alliance, and I know you mentioned the 9/11 response but there was assistance even if it didn't last throughout the whole war.

2)Ensures that we can skate by with just enough because if we weren't part of NATO, the US just might actually ask us to pull our weight, now I like you don't have a problem with this, but most people will and thats the issue.

3)Gives us military assets anywhere in the world and in an emergency any one of those nations can assist us if they are in the region might sound naive but it feels more reassuring knowing that in an emergency even if we didn't have the capability someone will help out.

1. As I’ve said, the namely Western European members response to the Afghan campaign disproves that notion……

2. Do the “most people” care what the United States thinks? If anything, that could be the catalyst for further self reliance……..But I doubt, by and large, the United States would care about it anymore then our “formal refusal” on Iraq.

3. Resources “around the world”? I suppose that discounts troops for Afghanistan though…..Besides, the Swedes, though not part of NATO, have had an informal working relationship with the partners for decades, why can’t Canada “pick and choose”?

I think we should restructure NATO more in line with a world wide alliance as Ive mentioned before, but if the EU survives its current problems they should be given a seat in the alliance instead of every EU member getting a seat.

But why? Wouldn’t Canada, if we so decided we needed to be part of a military alliance, be better off picking and choosing with whom we partner with?

For the longest time we had no helicopter assets in Afghanistan and I don't think we had any CAS assets either so we fall in the can't operate completely independent of the US.

In those aspects. Certainly……..Now with the examples you cite, is that because we can’t afford (to deploy) CAS/Tactical Helicopters etc, or we choose not to purchase/deploy them……….I’m certain we both know the answer, and our dependence is self inflicted……

I would say it depends more on Training and leadership then equipment. Leopard II's are more valuable, but they lose their value if those tanks are operated in an incompetent manner. Badly gained and Badly led troops will lose out even with the best equipment against an equal force of well trained well led troops even with obsolete equipment or no equipment at all. Look at the winter war, the Finns held out for far longer then anyone would have expected because the much larger and much better equipped force was badly led, and badly trained, true that the Finns were eventually overwhelmed by sheer numbers but they killed, destroyed and/or captured far more equipment and soldiers then the Soviets did. USSR started with over 3,000 tanks while Finland started with 30 some tanks and soviet union lost 3,000 tanks while finland lost the 30 tanks but captured a number of Russian tanks.

This is my personal opinion, but a well led Canadian soldier with crap equipment is better off then a well equipped enemy soldiers with crap training.

So you feel if we just trained our troops even better, we could avoid the expense of reequipping them?

I take it you didn’t serve in the 80s?

You have to ask them, I am just telling you that proportionally to means some countries are offering more then their fair share while others are offering much less and you are dissatisfied with both sides, those offering all they can, and those offering as little as they can.

I’m not so much disappointed with the practice, but the result and question why Canada needs to be a part of an alliance made up of said nations…………..

Not when you look at the CAR, it didn't fit in to the image of peacekeepers, it was essentially a war machine when most thought that CF personnel deploy and hand out candy and flowers.

Ahh, but the CAR was exactly what was needed in Rwanda………

Look at Rwanda though, Gen. Dallaire, in his report to the UN said that 5,000-10,000 well armed soldiers with the proper ROE's could guarantee the peace process, now tell me with such a relatively small contribution for such a high payout, meaning deploy even 5,000 well armed soldiers with proper ROE's and 800,000 people get to be alive doesn't that sound manageable? Canada has the means to help, not take on the whole burden but look at what we have, 3 Infantry regiments some of the best infantry in the world, the rest of the combat arms as well as the CSS are also world class.

I don’t doubt that we have world class men and women serving within the armed forces (In fact I know), but the Canadian public doesn’t like seeing flag draped caskets in Trenton well watching the news…….Nor do the majority want to spend the kind of money to equip our military so as to allow an independent action in a Rwanda like scenario….

Rework NATO, so that it becomes a strong international alliance, instead of having dozens of European Nations, have the alliance be Canada, the US, EU, Australia, NZ, and anyone else like minded.

When someone decides to attack a country in the alliance, they will face the countries military, but also the military of every other member, right now NATO has somewhere in the neighbourhood of 4.3 million military personnel(Regular and reserve) from the EU, almost 100,000 CF members(Regular and reserve and ranger) and the US brings in 2.9million members from all branches both full time and part time. Looking at those numbers there are 7.3million soldiers,sailor and aircrew in NATO, thousands of aircraft,tanks,hundreds of combat ships including almost 20 Carriers, I don't think any Nation will miss the implication of a war with one member state.

If NATO’s combined strength totals into the millions, why were we short a few thousands soldiers in Afghanistan?

A member Nation was attacked, for the first time since it’s creation article 5 was invoked and outside of the UK, the larger member states mailed it in………Clearly, the sole time NATO was suppose to operate as intended and it didn’t……..Do we need allies like this?

You mean ally with China and India?

If we have shared interests, why not? We already are “combating piracy” with both the Chinese and Indian navies……..

[Signals.Cpl]

1. As I’ve said, the namely Western European members response to the Afghan campaign disproves that notion……

Depends on the situation though, if like you said we had gone in killed off al-Quida and the Taliban and left the Northern Alliance to do as it pleases we would have been out of Afghanistan long ago, so many people and I assume in W.Europe they hold similar views, see the war in Afghanistan as a waste since the threat was removed and the war continued.

2. Do the “most people” care what the United States thinks? If anything, that could be the catalyst for further self reliance……..But I doubt, by and large, the United States would care about it anymore then our “formal refusal” on Iraq.

Most people don't care about what the US thinks, look at our country, its a national sport to bash the US wether they deserve it or not. We have had an anti-American attitude for generations but now its at least in my view dramatically increased due to the ability to have average joe voice his opinion in front of an audience of potentially millions.

We declined to support them in Iraq, but it would be different if we stick them with the bill for our defence while we give them the finger.

3. Resources “around the world”? I suppose that discounts troops for Afghanistan though…..Besides, the Swedes, though not part of NATO, have had an informal working relationship with the partners for decades, why can’t Canada “pick and choose”?

Because we don't have the option to pick and choose, once someone sets their sites on the US our ass is on the line by default. IF we wanted the ability to be as neutral as Sweden is we would have to commit economic suicide.

But why? Wouldn’t Canada, if we so decided we needed to be part of a military alliance, be better off picking and choosing with whom we partner with?

We might get stuck with the people we don't want as allies and promptly end up as America's lunch.

In those aspects. Certainly……..Now with the examples you cite, is that because we can’t afford (to deploy) CAS/Tactical Helicopters etc, or we choose not to purchase/deploy them……….I’m certain we both know the answer, and our dependence is self inflicted……

If I can't afford to feed my kids or I didn't want to spend the money to feed my kids would my kids not starve either way?

So you feel if we just trained our troops even better, we could avoid the expense of reequipping them?

I take it you didn’t serve in the 80s?

No I don't, I think that its not black and white, better training can offset a lot of handicaps, and in the long run a badly equipped but well trained and led army could get the job done, just becomes of question of the human costs.

And no, I didn't serve in the 80's so my opinion is based more on theory then experience.

Ahh, but the CAR was exactly what was needed in Rwanda………

Yes it is, but then most people still view Peacekeeping as hanging out flowers and candy. The CAR could have helped significantly in preventing the genocide.

I don’t doubt that we have world class men and women serving within the armed forces (In fact I know), but the Canadian public doesn’t like seeing flag draped caskets in Trenton well watching the news…….Nor do the majority want to spend the kind of money to equip our military so as to allow an independent action in a Rwanda like scenario….

Don't get me wrong, I hold no beliefs that Canada will ever spend enough money to equip the CF for independent operation, but as part of an alliance we sure could contribute greatly.

If NATO’s combined strength totals into the millions, why were we short a few thousands soldiers in Afghanistan?

As I mentioned before, and as you yourself said, people see it as a useless continuation of a mission that should have ended years ago. When your people see it as having done their job, and not having signed up for nation building they might fell little need to assist in something that is well outside of the mandate of the Alliance.

A member Nation was attacked, for the first time since it’s creation article 5 was invoked and outside of the UK, the larger member states mailed it in………Clearly, the sole time NATO was suppose to operate as intended and it didn’t……..Do we need allies like this?

They did operate as intended for the duration of the attack which lasted until the fall of the Taliban and the removal of al-Quida, if you see it as a nation building mission which the alliance is not intended for why should they see it different?

If we have shared interests, why not? We already are “combating piracy” with both the Chinese and Indian navies……..

Because the US is our main ally and will remain so for a long time to come unless something really stupid/horrible happens. We cannot choose China or Russia as an Ally as it would be disastrous to our economy and our independence. We could have agreements and we could work together in certain issues but when push comes to shove we stick by the US as a loyal ally or we stick in the US as an occupied territory.

[Guest Derek L]

Depends on the situation though, if like you said we had gone in killed off al-Quida and the Taliban and left the Northern Alliance to do as it pleases we would have been out of Afghanistan long ago, so many people and I assume in W.Europe they hold similar views, see the war in Afghanistan as a waste since the threat was removed and the war continued.

By some of the partners……….What’s the point of a military alliance if some members pick and choose the missions they’ll undertake based on domestic politics?

Most people don't care about what the US thinks, look at our country, its a national sport to bash the US wether they deserve it or not. We have had an anti-American attitude for generations but now its at least in my view dramatically increased due to the ability to have average joe voice his opinion in front of an audience of potentially millions.

We declined to support them in Iraq, but it would be different if we stick them with the bill for our defence while we give them the finger.

Who said anything about sticking them with the bill?

Because we don't have the option to pick and choose, once someone sets their sites on the US our ass is on the line by default. IF we wanted the ability to be as neutral as Sweden is we would have to commit economic suicide.

Perhaps you’re blurring the lines between NORAD and NATO………..Aside from us, what does NATO really do for the United States?

We might get stuck with the people we don't want as allies and promptly end up as America's lunch.

That makes no sense……..If America’s interests tend to intertwine with Canada’s, how will we be at odds? Are you suggesting the United States will invade Canada?

If I can't afford to feed my kids or I didn't want to spend the money to feed my kids would my kids not starve either way?

And it would make you a deadbeat just the same...........Isn't that what I've been saying?

No I don't, I think that its not black and white, better training can offset a lot of handicaps, and in the long run a badly equipped but well trained and led army could get the job done, just becomes of question of the human costs.

And no, I didn't serve in the 80's so my opinion is based more on theory then experience.

So if we double the amount of “training” and decline to purchase the F-35, circa 2030s, our Air Force will still be relevant?

Don't get me wrong, I hold no beliefs that Canada will ever spend enough money to equip the CF for independent operation, but as part of an alliance we sure could contribute greatly.

And the general consensus of the Canadian publics views towards the Afghan mission? If given the chance, would they want to do it all over again? If no, what makes you think “they” could stomach a hypothetical Rwandan Peacemaking mission?

As I mentioned before, and as you yourself said, people see it as a useless continuation of a mission that should have ended years ago. When your people see it as having done their job, and not having signed up for nation building they might fell little need to assist in something that is well outside of the mandate of the Alliance.

Ahh so you admit to the diversion between member states…….And if some partners are reluctant to commit a few thousands troops to the Dirt Box, how can we trust their resolve if force is required for a “real war”?

Because the US is our main ally and will remain so for a long time to come unless something really stupid/horrible happens. We cannot choose China or Russia as an Ally as it would be disastrous to our economy and our independence. We could have agreements and we could work together in certain issues but when push comes to shove we stick by the US as a loyal ally or we stick in the US as an occupied territory.

The Chinese, Indians and even the Russians are conducting piracy patrols in concert with the West right now off Somalia………

And you keep going back to the US attacking us………..So unless we remain in NATO, we’ll have not only the Russians, Chinese, and Indians to contend with, but now the United States?

Get a grip.

[Signals.Cpl]

By some of the partners……….What’s the point of a military alliance if some members pick and choose the missions they’ll undertake based on domestic politics?

Once the mission to expel the Taliban and al-Quida in Afghanistan ended the NATO mandate ended and a new mission, nation building stated at which point NATO members would not really be obligated to stay. Simple, if you want to have a more active and robust alliance you need to change its mandate.

Who said anything about sticking them with the bill?

So you don't see every piece of military equipment being a whole new war to purchase it? How long before another government comes in and cancelled all projects pending a review of all the purchases?

Perhaps you’re blurring the lines between NORAD and NATO………..Aside from us, what does NATO really do for the United States?

As a defensive alliance in nature, the US gets the knowledge that should a war breakout it still has the support of NATO behind it. Afghanistan was a defensive war insofar as the taliban had to be removed and al-Quida had to be kicked out, past that it was the responsibility of the Northern Alliance.

That makes no sense……..If America’s interests tend to intertwine with Canada’s, how will we be at odds? Are you suggesting the United States will invade Canada?

Well that was an answer to your suggestion that we should pick and choose our allies as the situation comes along, and honestly we have a limited choice of allies. In a serious international situation we are limited to the US. suggesting to diversify our allies to say China or Russia is great in peacetime, but should it ever come to that we will probably not be in a position of strength.

And it would make you a deadbeat just the same...........Isn't that what I've been saying?

So we have come to the conclusion that Canada is like the "barely second world" armies of Eastern Europe.

So if we double the amount of “training” and decline to purchase the F-35, circa 2030s, our Air Force will still be relevant?

So if we purchase the best equipment, say thats the F-35 and cut training to the levels of say the North Korean Airforce, would the RCAF still be relevant?

And the general consensus of the Canadian publics views towards the Afghan mission? If given the chance, would they want to do it all over again? If no, what makes you think “they” could stomach a hypothetical Rwandan Peacemaking mission?

If there was a relevant UN type organization to take leadership I can see Canadians having a change of heart. Right now one side sees the UNPK as handing out flowers and candy while bringing peace on earth without being violent like the big bad Americans, while the other side sees the UN as an irrelevant organization that I wouldn't trust with my pocket knife. And then there is the large majority of people who don't care one way or another. If a strong organization takes leadership, and makes an informative presentation it could have a significant impact on people's view.

Ahh so you admit to the diversion between member states…….And if some partners are reluctant to commit a few thousands troops to the Dirt Box, how can we trust their resolve if force is required for a “real war”?

Again, the US was attacked, NATO moved in to assist the US, and then the Adfghan War started, if the war had stated the goal of removing the Taliban, and removing al-Quida from power and the country, arming the Northern alliance and being out by late 2002-2003 it would have been good, but then you have an extension of the war in order to conduct nation building...by an alliance that is meant as a defensive alliance in a different type of war. Round one was NATO's concern, and round 2 was not so much, those who wanted to stay, stayed and those who didn't want to stay left as they had no obligation after the initial stage was done.

The Chinese, Indians and even the Russians are conducting piracy patrols in concert with the West right now off Somalia………

So? Russia is also supplying Syria with weapons to kill civilians, whats your point? Piracy affects them and therefore they act on it to protect their interests.

And you keep going back to the US attacking us………..So unless we remain in NATO, we’ll have not only the Russians, Chinese, and Indians to contend with, but now the United States?

Get a grip.

No, the last point had nothing to do with NATO, it was more of your suggestion that we can pick and choose our allies, which I took as implying that we had a choice to Choose China or Russia in any future conflict with the US instead of the US.

[Army Guy]

A tinfoil hat???

American giant Unocal, along with a Saudi company, signed an agreement with Turkmenistan--and with the Taliban--to build a major pipeline in the region.

This was halted after the Taliban declared support for bin Laden...but was resurrected in 2002, under a slightly different consortium. That's not conspiracy theory--that's public record.

Well according to my public record, this project has not even left the drafters pages. no construction or oil has been pumped through this public record oil pipe line. In fact a different route was chosen , and is completed with OIL being pumped through it. It kind of deflates the rest of the theory along with it ....

[Guest Derek L]

Once the mission to expel the Taliban and al-Quida in Afghanistan ended the NATO mandate ended and a new mission, nation building stated at which point NATO members would not really be obligated to stay. Simple, if you want to have a more active and robust alliance you need to change its mandate.

When was the transformation? Also, where does it state participation in the new mission was “optional”?

So you don't see every piece of military equipment being a whole new war to purchase it? How long before another government comes in and cancelled all projects pending a review of all the purchases?

Being as we live in a Democracy and all…….

As a defensive alliance in nature, the US gets the knowledge that should a war breakout it still has the support of NATO behind it. Afghanistan was a defensive war insofar as the taliban had to be removed and al-Quida had to be kicked out, past that it was the responsibility of the Northern Alliance.

Unless of course the United States is fighting two concurrent wars and a portion of the Alliance doesn’t want to get involved….

Well that was an answer to your suggestion that we should pick and choose our allies as the situation comes along, and honestly we have a limited choice of allies. In a serious international situation we are limited to the US. suggesting to diversify our allies to say China or Russia is great in peacetime, but should it ever come to that we will probably not be in a position of strength.

A limited choice of allies? We’ve been allies of both China and Russia prior, and shortly after enemies……..Things change, and countries don’t have friends, but interests….

So we have come to the conclusion that Canada is like the "barely second world" armies of Eastern Europe.

In some aspects we certainly are, as in some areas we excel…..As I’ve said, there’s varying degrees.

So if we purchase the best equipment, say thats the F-35 and cut training to the levels of say the North Korean Airforce, would the RCAF still be relevant?

Who suggested we cut training levels to that of North Korea?

If there was a relevant UN type organization to take leadership I can see Canadians having a change of heart. Right now one side sees the UNPK as handing out flowers and candy while bringing peace on earth without being violent like the big bad Americans, while the other side sees the UN as an irrelevant organization that I wouldn't trust with my pocket knife. And then there is the large majority of people who don't care one way or another. If a strong organization takes leadership, and makes an informative presentation it could have a significant impact on people's view.

So we just need to spin it better?

Again, the US was attacked, NATO moved in to assist the US, and then the Adfghan War started, if the war had stated the goal of removing the Taliban, and removing al-Quida from power and the country, arming the Northern alliance and being out by late 2002-2003 it would have been good, but then you have an extension of the war in order to conduct nation building...by an alliance that is meant as a defensive alliance in a different type of war. Round one was NATO's concern, and round 2 was not so much, those who wanted to stay, stayed and those who didn't want to stay left as they had no obligation after the initial stage was done.

Where is it stated “option 2” isn’t NATO’s “concern”? I’m sorry, but you’re talking out of your arse………NATO took over command of ISAF, then expanded NATO’s mandate…..

So? Russia is also supplying Syria with weapons to kill civilians, whats your point? Piracy affects them and therefore they act on it to protect their interests.

What's wrong with that? That's what I'm suggesting Canada does.....

No, the last point had nothing to do with NATO, it was more of your suggestion that we can pick and choose our allies, which I took as implying that we had a choice to Choose China or Russia in any future conflict with the US instead of the US.

I suggest you review my post from a few pages back.

That’s the rub, do we need an alliance, with the majority of members not willing to share the burden? As to expansion (Of Eastern Bloc nations), not to sound bigoted, but the former Warsaw Pact countries have little to offer in terms of an expansion of capabilities and power projection…….In a conflict/Scenario with Russia they may act as a speed bump and allow the Alliance a little more time to formulate a defence via trading ground for time, but the likelihood of such a scenario in the near term is nil.

Which brings us back to the reality of modern conflicts and those nations that are truly willing to intervene, which is namely the Anglosphere nations (US, UK, Canada, Australia and New Zealand) and a few select others like the Dutch, Norwegians, Danes, Japanese and South Koreans……….What do the Greeks, French, Italians and Estonians really have to offer Canada?

There is a difference between, “Can do”, “would like to do” and “won’t do” nations………

[Signals.Cpl]

When was the transformation? Also, where does it state participation in the new mission was “optional”?

What is the primary mission of NATO?

Being as we live in a Democracy and all…….

Somehow I doubt the US will care wether we are a democracy or not if they have to take a greater role in our defence because we don't want to spend the money.

Unless of course the United States is fighting two concurrent wars and a portion of the Alliance doesn’t want to get involved….

What is the primary mission of NATO?

A limited choice of allies? We’ve been allies of both China and Russia prior, and shortly after enemies……..Things change, and countries don’t have friends, but interests….

Again, having allies with a common enemy is one thing, but our primary ally for better or worse is the US. We can be allied to Russia and China and Iran, but if it comes to war or at the very least a "cold war" scenario with the US we know who our only choice for an ally will be.

Who suggested we cut training levels to that of North Korea?

So if we double the amount of “training” and decline to purchase the F-35, circa 2030s, our Air Force will still be relevant?

I was stating that state of the art equipment does not make a crappy military great, and lack of equipment or obsolete equipment does not necessarily make a an army bad.

Competent Soldiers and leadership makeup for shortcomings in equipment, while good equipment does not necessarily make up for incompetence.

So we just need to spin it better?

Or present a balanced proposal, and explaining why help is needed as opposed to claiming its internal conflict so we stay out, or argue for months wether its ethnic cleansing or genocide.

Where is it stated “option 2” isn’t NATO’s “concern”? I’m sorry, but you’re talking out of your arse………NATO took over command of ISAF, then expanded NATO’s mandate…..

http://www.nato.int/cps/en/natolive/official_texts_17120.htm

What's wrong with that? That's what I'm suggesting Canada does.....

And our nation interests dictate that we do not join the Warsaw Pact or any variation thereof should it ever be resurrected to counter balance America's power.

There is a difference between, “Can do”, “would like to do” and “won’t do” nations………

And it served the British Empire quite well to equip those who couldn't afford to equip themselves properly, and promptly use those nations to wage war. The question here is, does the US want to help equip armies that have training that meets NATO's standards in order for those armies to assist in a war, or does the US want to keep its equipment for itself while sending Americans to fight all by themselves.

[Guest Derek L]

What is the primary mission of NATO?

The collective defence of said member states……..So that’s a no on providing the “transition point” of the NATO mission or explaining the greater roll NATO took on with taking over ISAF?

How very "Western European" of you....

Somehow I doubt the US will care wether we are a democracy or not if they have to take a greater role in our defence because we don't want to spend the money.

Are you mixing up your responses? Clearly this was my response to your assertion that elected Canadian Governments at times cancel projects of their predecessors….

What is the primary mission of NATO?

See Above

Again, having allies with a common enemy is one thing, but our primary ally for better or worse is the US. We can be allied to Russia and China and Iran, but if it comes to war or at the very least a "cold war" scenario with the US we know who our only choice for an ally will be.

Have I said different? (In reference to the United States)

I was stating that state of the art equipment does not make a crappy military great, and lack of equipment or obsolete equipment does not necessarily make a an army bad.

Competent Soldiers and leadership makeup for shortcomings in equipment, while good equipment does not necessarily make up for incompetence.

I never suggested reducing training expectations nor levels………..Your assertion is that obsolete equipment can be made up for by “training”…..My contention is that you require both to be considered “first tier”.

Or present a balanced proposal, and explaining why help is needed as opposed to claiming its internal conflict so we stay out, or argue for months wether its ethnic cleansing or genocide.

And if the public will have none of it?

http://www.nato.int/...texts_17120.htm

From above link:

Article 5

The Parties agree that an armed attack against one or more of them in Europe or North America shall be considered an attack against them all and consequently they agree that, if such an armed attack occurs, each of them, in exercise of the right of individual or collective self-defence recognised by Article 51 of the Charter of the United Nations, will assist the Party or Parties so attacked by taking forthwith, individually and in concert with the other Parties, such action as it deems necessary, including the use of armed force, to restore and maintain the security of the North Atlantic area.

Any such armed attack and all measures taken as a result thereof shall immediately be reported to the Security Council. Such measures shall be terminated when the Security Council has taken the measures necessary to restore and maintain international peace and security .

Said attack occurred in the United States……United States invoked article 5.…….US led response occurred on Afghan soil……Several years later, NATO agreed to an expansion of it’s mandate in Afghanistan (ISAF)…….Numerous members “mailed it in”…….\

Do you have a NATO doc. That states some members can “mail it in”?

And our nation interests dictate that we do not join the Warsaw Pact or any variation thereof should it ever be resurrected to counter balance America's power.

Really? And what if China and Russia go to war? Where would our interests lay then?

And it served the British Empire quite well to equip those who couldn't afford to equip themselves properly, and promptly use those nations to wage war. The question here is, does the US want to help equip armies that have training that meets NATO's standards in order for those armies to assist in a war, or does the US want to keep its equipment for itself while sending Americans to fight all by themselves.

The British Empire was bankrupted by being a participant in a arms race and a willing partner (twice) in Continental European Defence Treaties……

That said, at the peak of PAX Britannia, the British had a relatively small regular army (Well for near 1000 years) and relied upon the “natives” in said colonies to defend themselves under British mentorship……….For the British, like us, are/were separated from potential advisories by oceans, thus this enables the enviable position of only requiring to focus on one linear form of defence (Rule the waves) and afforded them the ability to “pick and choose” their allies.

Only once they deviated from said doctrine (Gun Boat Diplomacy), did the Empire start to decline under the weight of a forward, fixed defence reliant upon Continental Europeans.

[Signals.Cpl]

The collective defence of said member states……..So that’s a no on providing the “transition point” of the NATO mission or explaining the greater roll NATO took on with taking over ISAF?

There is a significant difference between defence and nation building, especially when the original mission was to take down the bad guys protecting the even worse guys. So, if the mission was intended to takedown the Taliban in order to get to al-Quida, then that was the defensive portion of the mission, past that people started asking why a defensive alliance is doing nation building.

Would you support the idea of Canada deploying 2,500 soldiers back in to Afghanistan till 2014 or later in order not to abandon the Americans?

Are you mixing up your responses? Clearly this was my response to your assertion that elected Canadian Governments at times cancel projects of their predecessors….

Yes, and as a democracy the people elect the Canadian Government and as such the people are ultimately responsible. The Liberals since Pierre Trudeau have been cutting the military at every opportunity, and yet they kept on being reelected. We could put this on the government, but the elected officials take their cue from the Canadian people, if the people don't care about their own defence the politicians cut that to the bone in order to give the people something that will make them happy now, and all of that is made possible because of the United States and the fact that many Canadians including Politicians spit on the US but then assume that the US will protect us no matter what. This breeds the belief that we can have our cake and eat it too, as in we are safe and secure because the US is next door and we can spend the money on other things instead of our defence.

I never suggested reducing training expectations nor levels………..Your assertion is that obsolete equipment can be made up for by “training”…..My contention is that you require both to be considered “first tier”.

My position is that obsolete equipment is a negative but superb training and intelligence as an institution go a long way yo make up for obsolete equipment. Now, it does not make up for the obsolete equipment completely but it still leaves a capable force.

And if the public will have none of it?

Nothing can be done, if the people don't want to do it then they don't want to do it.

From above link:

Said attack occurred in the United States……United States invoked article 5.…….US led response occurred on Afghan soil……Several years later, NATO agreed to an expansion of it’s mandate in Afghanistan (ISAF)…….Numerous members “mailed it in”…….\

Do you have a NATO doc. That states some members can “mail it in”?

Why did Canada leave Afghanistan before the mission was "over"?

Really? And what if China and Russia go to war? Where would our interests lay then?

As far away from both of them as possible!

The British Empire was bankrupted by being a participant in a arms race and a willing partner (twice) in Continental European Defence Treaties……

By this I meant the period between 1700 and 1910. During that period Britain usually equipped the East Europeans(and by that I mean pretty much everyone east of France) and would deploy a small force with them while leaving the rest to harass the enemy coast.

That said, at the peak of PAX Britannia, the British had a relatively small regular army (Well for near 1000 years) and relied upon the “natives” in said colonies to defend themselves under British mentorship……….For the British, like us, are/were separated from potential advisories by oceans, thus this enables the enviable position of only requiring to focus on one linear form of defence (Rule the waves) and afforded them the ability to “pick and choose” their allies.

Only once they deviated from said doctrine (Gun Boat Diplomacy), did the Empire start to decline under the weight of a forward, fixed defence reliant upon Continental Europeans.

When would you say that was? As in 1914 they realistically had no choice but to enter the war at some point even if Belgium's neutrality was honoured as a French Collapse would have put Germany well ahead of England economically and then England's Naval domination would have ended shortly thereafter.

[Guest Derek L]

There is a significant difference between defence and nation building, especially when the original mission was to take down the bad guys protecting the even worse guys. So, if the mission was intended to takedown the Taliban in order to get to al-Quida, then that was the defensive portion of the mission, past that people started asking why a defensive alliance is doing nation building.

Would you support the idea of Canada deploying 2,500 soldiers back in to Afghanistan till 2014 or later in order not to abandon the Americans?

Then why the enlarged mandate incorporating ISAF? Are not NATO members still taking down “bad guys”?

Yes, and as a democracy the people elect the Canadian Government and as such the people are ultimately responsible. The Liberals since Pierre Trudeau have been cutting the military at every opportunity, and yet they kept on being reelected. We could put this on the government, but the elected officials take their cue from the Canadian people, if the people don't care about their own defence the politicians cut that to the bone in order to give the people something that will make them happy now, and all of that is made possible because of the United States and the fact that many Canadians including Politicians spit on the US but then assume that the US will protect us no matter what. This breeds the belief that we can have our cake and eat it too, as in we are safe and secure because the US is next door and we can spend the money on other things instead of our defence.

That’s right, you didn’t serve through the Mulroney years……..

My position is that obsolete equipment is a negative but superb training and intelligence as an institution go a long way yo make up for obsolete equipment. Now, it does not make up for the obsolete equipment completely but it still leaves a capable force.

My point still stands....

Why did Canada leave Afghanistan before the mission was "over"?

Politics.

By this I meant the period between 1700 and 1910. During that period Britain usually equipped the East Europeans(and by that I mean pretty much everyone east of France) and would deploy a small force with them while leaving the rest to harass the enemy coast.

If one wishes to define the exact conflict that started the decline of the Empire it was clearly the Boer War……..An insurgency fought on the other side of the planet…………

When would you say that was? As in 1914 they realistically had no choice but to enter the war at some point even if Belgium's neutrality was honoured as a French Collapse would have put Germany well ahead of England economically and then England's Naval domination would have ended shortly thereafter.

You’re wrong……..If the Empire didn’t involve itself in the conflict this doesn’t equate, for the large sums required to further it’s lead over Germany in the Dreadnought race would become available………The Kaiser after all would be “fighting a war” well the British (and her Empire) would not…….This also begs the Question, if Britain posed no threat to Germany, why would Germany engage is said arms race?