Canadian Military or Foreign Aid

[Charon]

Army Guy Canada is not the U.S.'s 51st overseas legion. The U.S.'s interests are not neccessarily our interests, and I see no reason why we should do their international bidding.

Just because you personally aren't ready for a life without war, doesn't mean the rest of us aren't.

[carepov]

Whoa, that's quite the rant... I hope that the human race will eliminate war - if the current trends of reduced acceptance of military and civilian casualties continues then I am sure the human race will be ready for life without war. I am sure that you have good reasons to be pessimistic, but think about what your predecessors saw in wars such as the American civil war, WWI, WWII, Korea, Vietnam, today's world is quite a bit better, no?

...

1.2 % of our GDP goes to spending on our military, the other 98.8 % is not under review WHY ? because the military is always a linberal target....and yet billions are spent on other stupid shit....the military has been targeted long enoungh....time to paint another target....

...

Don't forget, the CPC are currently aiming to cut defence spending (~9% of federal budget) as well targeting other spending.

[Guest Derek L]

Yes I agree a professional Canadian military is needed - but the point I was making was that our security depends on our relationship with the USA - and extra 10 icebreakers, 25 airplanes and 10 helicopters has absolutely no impact on our security nor does it change the fact that, if we ever faced a real enemy we would be dependant on the USA to defend us. (a very big IF, perhaps even negligible as Charon suggests)

But that is where you’re wrong, a few extra, modern and interoperable, ships, aircraft and maritime helicopters is something that we currently (or in the near future ) “do right” and in some instances, based on our longstanding working relationship with the United States, are their equal and seamless in integration, but a great many other nations, including NATO members, can’t currently (or in the near future) provide such trained assets to a US led coalition force.

I also agree that we should be ready to assist in coalition warfare. This supports my point about making the Canadian military more specialized by avoiding duplication of capabilities within NATO countries. Perhaps Canada would take a stronger role in military/police training.

Self fulfilled pigeon holing pays no benefit to us or are allies and due to the nature of combined arms modern warfare, will degrade the forces performance and utility in which you seek to maintain. A modern multi element force is required, but with the understanding that with a decreased ability to maintain or offer certain commitments, a reduction in some areas, coupled with an increase in others, would allow us a more viable force structure within (or perhaps even reducing in the long-term) our current budget framework.

Yes, revisit the past, but do not limit this to military matters. Perhaps Canada's best contributions could come in the diplomatic sphere - to help avoid/shorten future conflicts. Canada is well positioned to act as a bridge between the US and other ideologies - this work would be much more valuable to the US than some military hardware. One example is the freeing of the Iran hostages.

For every past diplomatic success you provide, I can provide a diplomatic failure………That is no fault of diplomacy in and of itself, and such efforts should be always considered to the fullest extent, but walking softly is just that when not carrying a big stick……….The most successful peacekeeping organization of all time held the inherent capability to destroy all life on this planet ten times over and to date, has kept the planet removed from the horrors of a Third World War by the deterrence (and terror) residing within it’s scope:

[Charon]

Edited May 2, 2013 by Charon

[Guest Derek L]

[Charon]

Derek L the quote you ascribe to Orwell was never uttered by Orwell. Which is ironically rather Orwellian isn't it?

http://quoteinvestigator.com/2011/11/07/rough-men/

[Moonlight Graham]

No. Why should we just give 0.7% of GDP away?

1. Canada and many other governments have pledged to "commit 0.7% of rich-countries' gross national product (GNP) to Official Development Assistance" (yet most consistently come up short)..

2. To prevent people from dying and to help develop poorer nations (including those we directly benefit from in terms of our economy/standard of living no less, both currently and historically).

3. Read the blue part of my signature (though I believe now it's about 25,000 per day or even a bit less)

Edited May 2, 2013 by Moonlight Graham

[Moonlight Graham]

Oooopps, after looking into the numbers I must admit that I was very wrong, we are spending about 1.2 % of GDP on Defence therefore reducing by 0.7% of GDP was an ignorant statement on my part. A more realistic stretch target may be 0.9% of GDP meaning foreign aid would need to come from other places.

What I would propose instead of giving purely foreign aid (which can be helpful no doubt and there's good that can be done in providing assistance to other countries) is to organize western governments to agree to even out the terms of trade between rich and poor countries by ie: reducing west-imposed tariffs that hinder developing countries on a case-by-case basis, relaxing strict international IP and patent laws for poor countries, and reducing exploitation (natural resources, labour, environment etc.) and predatory financial takeovers by western businesses/investors/governments, etc. etc., as well as reforming the trade/power imbalances within the World Trade Organization.

We would have to give less money in aid if we increased the strength and fairness of trade for poorer countries. An even playing field regarding trade is one of the best forms of aid we could give these nations, and it would reduce their official aid dependency on us as well. There is a decent chance that reducing western exploitation of developing countries would hurt western/Canada's economy, but sometimes preventing people from suffering and dying is worth giving up a bit of profit

edit: we could make things a lot simpler and also slice the debt owned by developing countries.

Edited May 2, 2013 by Moonlight Graham

[Guest Derek L]

Derek L the quote you ascribe to Orwell was never uttered by Orwell. Which is ironically rather Orwellian isn't it?

http://quoteinvestigator.com/2011/11/07/rough-men/

Put down the keyboard and read some of Orwell’s actual work, in this case in particular, his essay on Rudyard Kipling…….Though not the same wording verbatim, the same intent.

[Charon]

I've read Orwell and I guarantee you'd never heard of that Kipling bit until you read the link I sent you showing that the quote you attributed to Orwell was never uttered by the man.

[Guest Derek L]

I've read Orwell and I guarantee you'd never heard of that Kipling bit until you read the link I sent you showing that the quote you attributed to Orwell was never uttered by the man.

I didn't click on your link, I read his works over 30 years ago in university.

[Guest Derek L]

I didn't click on your link, I read his works over 30 years ago in university.

Just clicked on your link.......I fail to see how one could understand the intent of Orwell's essay by reading snippets…….Then again, it’s obvious your understanding of history was obtained through snippets……..

[Charon]

Now here is an actual and real quote by Orwell written shortly before he died:

"

Chapter III War is Peace

The splitting up of the world into three great super-states was an event which could be and indeed was foreseen before the middle of the twentieth century. With the absorption of Europe by Russia and of the British Empire by the United States, two of the three existing powers, Eurasia and Oceania, were already effectively in being. The third, Eastasia, only emerged as a distinct unit after another decade of confused fighting. The frontiers between the three super-states are in some places arbitrary, and in others they fluctuate according to the fortunes of war, but in general they follow geographical lines. Eurasia comprises the whole of the northern part of the European and Asiatic land-mass, from Portugal to the Bering Strait. Oceania comprises the Americas, the Atlantic islands including the British Isles, Australasia, and the southern portion of Africa. Eastasia, smaller than the others and with a less definite western frontier, comprises China and the countries to the south of it, the Japanese islands and a large but fluctuating portion of Manchuria, Mongolia, and Tibet.

In one combination or another, these three super-states are permanently at war, and have been so for the past twenty-five years. War, however, is no longer the desperate, annihilating struggle that it was in the early decades of the twentieth century. It is a warfare of limited aims between combatants who are unable to destroy one another, have no material cause for fighting and are not divided by any genuine ideological difference. This is not to say that either the conduct of war, or the prevailing attitude towards it, has become less bloodthirsty or more chivalrous. On the contrary, war hysteria is continuous and universal in all countries, and such acts as raping, looting, the slaughter of children, the reduction of whole populations to slavery, and reprisals against prisoners which extend even to boiling and burying alive, are looked upon as normal, and, when they are committed by one’s own side and not by the enemy, meritorious. But in a physical sense war involves very small numbers of people, mostly highly-trained specialists, and causes comparatively few casualties. The fighting, when there is any, takes place on the vague frontiers whose whereabouts the average man can only guess at, or round the Floating Fortresses which guard strategic spots on the sea lanes. In the centres of civilization war means no more than a continuous shortage of consumption goods, and the occasional crash of a rocket bomb which may cause a few scores of deaths. War has in fact changed its character. More exactly, the reasons for which war is waged have changed in their order of importance. Motives which were already present to some small extent in the great wars of the early twentieth century have now become dominant and are consciously recognized and acted upon.

To understand the nature of the present war — for in spite of the regrouping which occurs every few years, it is always the same war — one must realize in the first place that it is impossible for it to be decisive. None of the three super-states could be definitively conquered even by the other two in combination. They are too evenly matched, and their natural defences are too formidable. Eurasia is protected by its vast land spaces, Oceania by the width of the Atlantic and the Pacific, Eastasia by the fecundity and industriousness of its inhabitants. Secondly, there is no longer, in a material sense, anything to fight about. With the establishment of self-contained economies, in which production and consumption are geared to one another, the scramble for markets which was a main cause of previous wars has come to an end, while the competition for raw materials is no longer a matter of life and death. In any case each of the three super-states is so vast that it can obtain almost all the materials that it needs within its own boundaries. In so far as the war has a direct economic purpose, it is a war for labour power."

http://ebooks.adelaide.edu.au/o/orwell/george/o79n/chapter2.9.html

[Charon]

Just clicked on your link.......I fail to see how one could understand the intent of Orwell's essay by reading snippets…….Then again, it’s obvious your understanding of history was obtained through snippets……..

This coming from the guy who quoted a snippet that was a false quotation? Gold truly gold.

I didn't click on your link, I read his works over 30 years ago in university.

That's a laugh. Didn't they teach you in university about falsely quoting people?

Edited May 2, 2013 by Charon

[Guest Derek L]

Now here is an actual and real quote by Orwell written shortly before he died:

"

Chapter III War is Peace

The splitting up of the world into three great super-states was an event which could be and indeed was foreseen before the middle of the twentieth century. With the absorption of Europe by Russia and of the British Empire by the United States, two of the three existing powers, Eurasia and Oceania, were already effectively in being. The third, Eastasia, only emerged as a distinct unit after another decade of confused fighting. The frontiers between the three super-states are in some places arbitrary, and in others they fluctuate according to the fortunes of war, but in general they follow geographical lines. Eurasia comprises the whole of the northern part of the European and Asiatic land-mass, from Portugal to the Bering Strait. Oceania comprises the Americas, the Atlantic islands including the British Isles, Australasia, and the southern portion of Africa. Eastasia, smaller than the others and with a less definite western frontier, comprises China and the countries to the south of it, the Japanese islands and a large but fluctuating portion of Manchuria, Mongolia, and Tibet.

In one combination or another, these three super-states are permanently at war, and have been so for the past twenty-five years. War, however, is no longer the desperate, annihilating struggle that it was in the early decades of the twentieth century. It is a warfare of limited aims between combatants who are unable to destroy one another, have no material cause for fighting and are not divided by any genuine ideological difference. This is not to say that either the conduct of war, or the prevailing attitude towards it, has become less bloodthirsty or more chivalrous. On the contrary, war hysteria is continuous and universal in all countries, and such acts as raping, looting, the slaughter of children, the reduction of whole populations to slavery, and reprisals against prisoners which extend even to boiling and burying alive, are looked upon as normal, and, when they are committed by one’s own side and not by the enemy, meritorious. But in a physical sense war involves very small numbers of people, mostly highly-trained specialists, and causes comparatively few casualties. The fighting, when there is any, takes place on the vague frontiers whose whereabouts the average man can only guess at, or round the Floating Fortresses which guard strategic spots on the sea lanes. In the centres of civilization war means no more than a continuous shortage of consumption goods, and the occasional crash of a rocket bomb which may cause a few scores of deaths. War has in fact changed its character. More exactly, the reasons for which war is waged have changed in their order of importance. Motives which were already present to some small extent in the great wars of the early twentieth century have now become dominant and are consciously recognized and acted upon.

To understand the nature of the present war — for in spite of the regrouping which occurs every few years, it is always the same war — one must realize in the first place that it is impossible for it to be decisive. None of the three super-states could be definitively conquered even by the other two in combination. They are too evenly matched, and their natural defences are too formidable. Eurasia is protected by its vast land spaces, Oceania by the width of the Atlantic and the Pacific, Eastasia by the fecundity and industriousness of its inhabitants. Secondly, there is no longer, in a material sense, anything to fight about. With the establishment of self-contained economies, in which production and consumption are geared to one another, the scramble for markets which was a main cause of previous wars has come to an end, while the competition for raw materials is no longer a matter of life and death. In any case each of the three super-states is so vast that it can obtain almost all the materials that it needs within its own boundaries. In so far as the war has a direct economic purpose, it is a war for labour power."

http://ebooks.adelaide.edu.au/o/orwell/george/o79n/chapter2.9.html

Neat piece of fiction.......I first read it in 1982.....What's your point?

[Charon]

I underlined the point just for you.

1984 was fiction, but it was based on current events, at the time, and to this day its a starkly accurate dystopian prophecy.

Edited May 2, 2013 by Charon

[Guest Derek L]

This coming from the guy who quoted a snippet that was a false quotation? Gold truly gold.

That's a laugh. Didn't they teach you in university about falsely quoting people?

Sure, I also understand this:

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/paraphrase

par·a·phrase [par-uh-freyz] Show IPA noun, verb,par·a·phrased, par·a·phras·ing.

noun

1.

a restatement of a text or passage giving the meaning in another form, as for clearness; rewording.

2.

the act or process of restating or rewording.

So very true

[Charon]

Sure, I also understand this:

If you paraphrase you have to indicate that you are paraphrasing. Posting an image which intimates that the man said a quote which he didn't, is intellectual dishonesty at best and black propaganda at worst.

Here once again is the grossly misleading picture that you posted:

Edited May 2, 2013 by Charon

[Guest Derek L]

If you paraphrase you have to indicate that you are paraphrasing. Posting an image which intimates that the man said a quote which he didn't, is intellectual dishonesty at best and black propaganda at worst.

Here once again is the grossly misleading picture that you posted:

Misleading:

http://www.thefreedictionary.com/misleading

misleading [mɪsˈliːdɪŋ]

adj

tending to confuse or mislead; deceptive

From Orwell's text:

http://www.george-orwell.org/Rudyard_Kipling/0.html

It is true that Kipling does not understand the economic aspect

of the relationship between the highbrow and the blimp. He does not see

that the map is painted red chiefly in order that the coolie may be

exploited. Instead of the coolie he sees the Indian Civil Servant; but

even on that plane his grasp of function, of who protects whom, is very

sound. He sees clearly that men can only be highly civilized while other

men, inevitably less civilized, are there to guard and feed them.

I must apologize for confusing you.

[Charon]

Wow if that's not a misleading I don't know what is. You would have to bend over backwards 360 degrees to have one = the other.

2+2 does not = a 5.

Not only is there gross misleading going on, but what he's said has not only been taken out of context and then a new quote completely fabricated based on that, but the context is not presented at all, and another context is suggested.

Some vague mis-quote on some essay he wrote on Kipling in mid life, is far less indicating of his final opinions than the masterpiece he frantically and passionately wrote practically on his death-bed outlining his thoughts on the current situation. The book being 1984.

If I was to use the same technique I could just as soon take some quote of Orwell's from his socialist days and say that Orwell believed this. Sure he did at one point of his life, but he had many differing opinions throughout his life, which were constantly changing. Compare that quote to say Animal Farm and you can present two entirely different people.

If you want to actually use the real original quote from Orwell's obscure work on Kipling in context and apply it to this thread topic as a whole in the present day, it doesn't look particularly good. Kipling was promoting imperialism with no apologies attached.

"It is true that Kipling does not understand the economic aspect
of the relationship between the highbrow and the blimp. He does not see
that the map is painted red chiefly in order that the coolie may be
exploited. Instead of the coolie he sees the Indian Civil Servant; but
even on that plane his grasp of function, of who protects whom, is very
sound.He sees clearly that men can only be highly civilized while other
men, inevitably less civilized, are there to guard and feed them."

Do you really want to go back to Imperialism? Should we have coolies and Rickshaw drivers, or even slaves powering our economy? Should we be seizing other nations by force and rule over them?

If so you're a better man than I Gunga Din.

Edited May 2, 2013 by Charon

[Guest Derek L]

Wow if that's not a misleading I don't know what is. You would have to bend over backwards 360 degrees to have one = the other.

2+2 does not = a 5.

Not only is there gross misleading going on, but what he's said has not only been taken out of context and then a new quote completely fabricated based on that, but the context is not presented at all, and another context is suggested.

Some vague mis-quote on some essay he wrote on Kipling in mid life, is far less indicating of his final opinions than the masterpiece he frantically and passionately wrote practically on his death-bed outlining his thoughts on the current situation. The book being 1984.

If I was to use the same technique I could just as soon take some quote of Orwell's from his socialist days and say that Orwell believed this. Sure he did at one point of his life, but he had many differing opinions throughout his life, which were constantly changing. Compare that quote to say Animal Farm and you can present two entirely different people.

If you want to actually use the real original quote from Orwell's obscure work on Kipling in context and apply it to this thread topic as a whole in the present day, it doesn't look particularly good. Kipling was promoting imperialism with no apologies attached.

"It is true that Kipling does not understand the economic aspect

of the relationship between the highbrow and the blimp. He does not see

that the map is painted red chiefly in order that the coolie may be

exploited. Instead of the coolie he sees the Indian Civil Servant; but

even on that plane his grasp of function, of who protects whom, is very

sound.He sees clearly that men can only be highly civilized while other

men, inevitably less civilized, are there to guard and feed them."

Do you really want to go back to Imperialism? Should we have coolies and Rickshaw drivers, or even slaves powering our economy? Should we be seizing other nations by force and rule over them?

If so you're a better man than I Gunga Din.

The above passage is Orwell's own words (written in the early 1940s), confirming Kipling's views on what is required to foster a civilized society.......... And you said I'm misleading? I simply submitted a quote attributed to him, and though not verbatim, it’s intent is conveyed and confirmed in a passage (also quoted) from his non-fiction work………

Yet you suggest you know his thoughts prior to his death (With no insight on how you garnered such information), well attempting to confirm your fragmented opinion of the thread topic by applying a portion of his fiction...........

Thanks for coming out though

[Charon]

You submitted no quote of Orwell whatsoever. What you submitted was simply not a quote from Orwell. You are absolutely shameless in your overtly clear intellectual dishonesty here.

Here is the article that I drew on for Orwell's writing 1984 on his deathbed. It's an excellent article.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/books/2009/may/10/1984-george-orwell

As for the original Kipling bit, which was taken out of context and reinvented to be a fake Orwell quote.

Kipling and Orwell were talking about overt imperialism in its most basic form.

Are you really going to use that as an example of what should be the basis of Canadian Policy?

Edited May 2, 2013 by Charon

[Guest Derek L]

You submitted no quote of Orwell whatsoever. What you submitted was simply not a quote from Orwell. You are absolutely shameless in your overtly clear intellectual dishonesty here.

Here is the article that I drew on for Orwell's writing 1984 on his deathbed. It's an excellent article.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/books/2009/may/10/1984-george-orwell

As for the original Kipling bit, which was taken out of context and reinvented to be a fake Orwell quote.

Kipling and Orwell were talking about overt imperialism in its most basic form.

Are you really going to use that as an example of what should be the basis of Canadian Policy?

Taken out of context? I provided the entire context of Orwell sharing Kipling's view that civilized society requires uncivilized acts to maintain it’s civility. ...........Like I said, sorry if the context confuses you, but that is what is written by Orwell himself.

What about:

“We have become too civilized to grasp the obvious. For the truth is very simple. To survive you often have to fight, and to fight you have to dirty yourself. War is evil, and it is often the lesser evil. Those who take the sword perish by the sword, and those who don’t take the sword perish by smelly diseases.” —George Orwell

So at times, ones survival can be predicated upon conflict………per Orwell of course

[Army Guy]

Army Guy Canada is not the U.S.'s 51st overseas legion. The U.S.'s interests are not neccessarily our interests, and I see no reason why we should do their international bidding.

Just because you personally aren't ready for a life without war, doesn't mean the rest of us aren't.

I did not say US interests and Canadian interests were the same, you did, i did however say we have signed defensive agreements which could drag us into a conflict, until those are canceled then we as a nation must have the military to back up those agreements....

You know nothing about me, or other soldiers, you base your opinions on what you've read or seen on TV.....sure we put up a brave front, but when the metal starts hitting the bone none of us really want to be in the shitholes our government sends us to......And if war was not a dangerous enough place to be it's people like your ilk that make it even that much more deadly....you have the guts to send us over there but not the balls to make sure we have the right training or equipment based on the Dollar.....that is what drives you and your kind money.....

And it's not me personally that is not ready, it's most of the world, with over 2000 bil dollars spent on militaries, i think that pretty much backs up my statement, How much is spent on humanitary relief again....So you still think the majority of the planet is ready to turn their equipment into plows to feed the masses....why is that, because we don't give a rats ass....as long as there is hockey, beer, we don't care....Thats not me just ranting...that is a fact....So until that all changes your skys are not blue, but rose colored....and Canada as a nation will continue to need a military for years to come...

[bush_cheney2004]

.....You know nothing about me, or other soldiers, you base your opinions on what you've read or seen on TV.....sure we put up a brave front, but when the metal starts hitting the bone none of us really want to be in the shitholes our government sends us to......And if war was not a dangerous enough place to be it's people like your ilk that make it even that much more deadly....you have the guts to send us over there but not the balls to make sure we have the right training or equipment based on the Dollar.....that is what drives you and your kind money.....

True 'dat...reminds me of a movie with this character spelling out the exact same thing: