Canadian Military Issues

[Stoker]

Yes, we do. We pay much more than several of those with a veto. We always have paid our dues on time. We are more fair minded and less politically motivated than many of those with a vet. Why should we not have a seat??

So you are saying that we deserve a seat because we pay our dues on time? Fair minded? More like on the fence.....Less politically motivated? How's that? You think Canada doesn't look out for itself first? Ok, really, why do we deserve one?

I suppose vetoing a resolution against Saddam for using poison gas against the Iranians was self protection????

Yes, right.

I suppose vetoing any resolution against Israel's aggressive acts is self defense. Yeah sure.

Sure, why not? I wouldn't expect a country to not put it's own needs first........why should the States be any different?

Perhaps Canada needs to address the issue on whether or not we are a pacificist nation. Maybe we could have a plebisite on the issue.

I wouldn't begin to suggest I speak for all Canadians but personally I support a neutral Canada, keeping a low amount of military personnel for peacekeeeping missions via the UN and for any civil strife, like when Albertans start acting out (joke).

Didn't we bring up the prospect of becoming neutral before?

If we became neutral, say good-bye to NATO and Norad and all the other mutral defence treaties that we are part of, and then be prepared to increase defence spending signifacantly, since we will be all on our lonesome.......

You see, it costs money to be neutral, go ask the Swedes.....

[Argus]

Do we deserve a seat? What about a veto?

Yes, we do. We pay much more than several of those with a veto. We always have paid our dues on time. We are more fair minded and less politically motivated than many of those with a vet. Why should we not have a seat??

Soooo, you are saying that those who pay more taxes should have more of a say than those who pay less? I mean, if Canada should get a permanent seat on the Security Council because we pay more than, say, India, does it not follow that rich people in Canada should get more representation than poor people as a matter of policy? If I pay twice as much in taxes than you do I should get two votes, right?

[Argus]

Whats your point here? To prove mine further?

Well armed military = deterence.

No, that does not always follow. It works the other way , too. Others arm more heavily and may do a pre emptive strike. How often has Switzerland been attacked?

Not a very good example in that Switzerland has a very robust military capability. No one wants to mess with them. Sweden, the other big neutral, also maintains a large standing military and an enormous reserve.

To suggest third world or rogue nations arm themselves because the US is well-armed is patently silly. These dictators build up their military to hold down their own people and/or to fight or bully their immediate neighbours.

[caesar]

Soooo, you are saying that those who pay more taxes should have more of a say than those who pay less? I mean, if Canada should get a permanent seat on the Security Council because we pay more than, say, India, does it not follow that rich people in Canada should get more representation than poor people as a matter of policy? If I pay twice as much in taxes than you do I should get two votes, right?

why shouldn't we have a seat as much as Russia?? No taxation without representation. The UN should reflect a changing world. Countries should vote honestly on the issues. We should have globally minded people representing the countries. Perhaps representavies from the world should vote on who gets to represent each country.

[caesar]

You think Canada doesn't look out for itself first?  Ok, really, why do we deserve one?

Yes, I really do believe that we are much more willing to look at the whole issue not just how it affects Canada. Otherwise we could have held our noses and joined the USA in its illegal invasion of Iraq. Would have been much better for our economy.

We honoured our commitment to the UN; financially and morally; more than one can say for Bush and co. Always in arrears; how dare they complain that the UN is ineffective when they are the biggest obstacle to the UN performing as it is meant to. Pay up and stop frivolous and unjustified use of their veto. They should not even have a veto due to delinquent dues.

[Stoker]

Otherwise we could have held our noses and joined the USA in its illegal invasion of Iraq. Would have been much better for our economy.

It would never have happend with a fair weather Liberal government.............but we did take part in the "illegal Kosovo air war"......

We honoured our commitment to the UN; financially and morally; more than one can say for Bush and co. Always in arrears; how dare they complain that the UN is ineffective when they are the biggest obstacle to the UN performing as it is meant to. Pay up and stop frivolous and unjustified use of their veto. They should not even have a veto due to delinquent dues.

The UN is ineffective............I challange you to prove otherwise.

[playfullfellow]

Caesar, we wont get a seat at the UN until the world can take us seriously as a peace keeping country or a country that has a modern military. Right now we are pretty well pathetic when it comes to our military and frankly, the laughing stock of the military world. Even little Denmark has a better equipped army than we do. Look, I am not advocating becoming the next super power but I do advocate giving our army personel the best we can. They are the one putting their lives on the line for us. It's just like our police and firemen desreve the best equipment we can afford, not some second hand crap that no one else wants. Our troops in Afghanistan had to wear green camo instead of desert camo when they first got there. Green would sure make a nice target out there in those rocks and sand. Face it, our troops get to use second hand stuff from all over the world and that pretty well sucks. A countries military is something we should be proud of but it is hard wehn you know the Liberals have screwed the whole bloody thing up.

[caesar]

The UN is ineffective............I challange you to prove otherwise.

It is not as effective as it should be largely due to the USA not honouring its commitments and paying its dues. The USA and to a lessor degree, the other four countries with a veto; for misusing its veto. The UN is the way to go; with some adjustments; for a chance to make this world more peaceful. The UN needs to be given the power to collect taxes on things such as military equipment and ammunition.

Making 5 countries with a veto was short sighted and did not take into account a changing world with the powers of countries rising and falling. It failed to realize that many of these favoured countries would use the veto for unfair political games.It was created with noble ideals; unfortunately it depends on it member countries living by those ideals; what a big disappointment the USA has been. It aspires to bring democracy to the world but acts as dictator to the world.

[caesar]

Didn't we bring up the prospect of becoming neutral before?

If we became neutral, say good-bye to NATO and Norad and all the other mutral defence treaties that we are part of, and then be prepared to increase defence spending signifacantly, since we will be all on our lonesome.......

You see, it costs money to be neutral, go ask the Swedes.....

I did; they spend only 1% of their GDP on their military; less than Canada does.

[Stoker]

It is not as effective as it should be largely due to the USA not honouring its commitments and paying its dues. The USA and to a lessor degree, the other four countries with a veto; for misusing its veto. The UN is the way to go; with some adjustments; for a chance to make this world more peaceful. The UN needs to be given the power to collect taxes on things such as military equipment and ammunition.

I forgot............all the worlds problems are caused by the United States Thank christ that Russia, China and France have never used their veto powers.

Making 5 countries with a veto was short sighted and did not take into account a changing world with the powers of countries rising and falling. It failed to realize that many of these favoured countries would use the veto for unfair political games.It was created with noble ideals; unfortunately it depends on it member countries living by those ideals; what a big disappointment the USA has been. It aspires to bring democracy to the world but acts as dictator to the world.

And right here you expalin why the UN will never work.............the smaller, less powerful countries don't get a say, nor would the larger 5 countries want smaller countries making desicions that would affect them.......The United Nations will never work.

I did; they spend only 1% of their GDP on their military; less than Canada does.

Military expenditures - percent of GDP: 2.1% or almost double what we spend based on our GDP

[playfullfellow]

In a perfect world, you ideas would work caesar but we do not live in one. The US is the only super power at the moment. The world has had to rely on the US to help end both world wars in the past. Until the second world war, the US advocated isolationist attitudes but in the end, they were basically brought into the conflicts because someone attacked them. The US vowed no one would attack them again. With the constant threat of the Soviets, they built a massive military. The Soviets collapsed and that left us with the US as a sole super power. Yeah, it has kind of gone to their heads but they are still pretty well the only nation on the earth that can end a conflict once they get involved.

All of the nations with a veto will is it to their own benefit. Would Canada be any different? Maybe but who knows, Martin talks through his butt most of the time. The UN has too far away from actually stopping world conflicts by wanting to get involved in everyday life of ordinary people. The UN has been taken over by special interst groups like every other political organization in the free world. The UN has lost a lot of its validitty around the world.

[JWayne625]

Whatever we build will cost 2-3 times what it would cost us to buy from someone else. Given our miltiary is already on the edge of collapse for lack of money I fail to see how we could possibly afford building everything ourself.

Sure it could be expensive to build subs and ships for ourselves, but would it not be better to employ Canadian's to build our ships and subs? At least it would put Canadian's to work, Canadian's I might add who would be making good wages which in turn would translate into taxes for all levels of government and feed our economy. Buying or having them built overseas does not provide one cost advantage to Canada's GDP since the our tax money is leaving the country and will not be back.

We had one of the most modern ship yards in North America in Saint John, New Brunswick, and when the Frigate Program was going full steam this facility employed approximately 1400 men and women, not counting the peole that were employed in the ship yards in Quebec, and spin-off employment was enormous in many other parts of Canada. Now $55 million of your tax dollars is being paid to one of the richest family's in Canada, the Irving's, to mothball this yard, and most of the money will in all likelihood wind up in pockets of the Irving's, so they can diversify their holdings, while the family fortune has gone south to Burmuda. Some deal that is for Canadians.

Someone suggested aligning ourselves with countries more like ourselves, instead of the USA, or the UK. Who might that be, France? The European Union does nothing for Canada, why would we align ourselves with them? It is the USA that is our largest trading partner, and if the truth were admitted by some of these self-righteous posters, the USA controls most of the industry in Canada. In many cases large industries operating in Canada are merely subsiduaries of US owned corporations. In essence they own us, lock stock and barrel. Sure we can pretend that we are this independent country, but are we really? Just think of how long Canada would exist if US dollars were not invested here. Be realistic, at least. We need the USA far more than they need us!

[caesar]

Military of Switzerland

Military manpower

Military age 20 years of age

Availability males age 15-49: 1,855,808 (2000 est.)

Fit for military service males age 15-49: 1,579,921 (2000 est.)

Reaching military age annually males: 42,169 (2000 est.)

Military expenditures

Dollar figure $3.1 billion (FY98)

Percent of GDP 1.2% (FY98)

This was May 2003; in 2004 they were announcing that they were making drastic cuts to their military. Not 2.1 that you claim stoke. What year are you looking at???

I cannot find the page I saw earlier where in 2004; it was 1% GDP

[caesar]

Stoker; your reference was Sweden not Switzerland; different countries. If you check Switzerland with those same sources; it affirms my earlier figure of 1 % of their GDP in 2004

[JWayne625]

The UN needs to be given the power to collect taxes on things such as military equipment and ammunition.

Give some outside organization, the U.N. or otherwise the powers to tax Canadian's? I don't think so Tim! Think about that prospect for just a moment. We have Federal, Provincial, and Municipal government's all looking for taxes from Canadian's, now you advocate that we add the UN to collect even more taxes. I believe that this year's tax-freedom day was sometime in July. If we add the U.N. as another in a long line of tax collectors that should push that date to sometime in December.

The U.N. cannot continue to interfere in the internal workings of countries. You cannot impose Western style democracy, if that's what you want to call it, on Middle Eastern or Asian cultures, it simply will not work. The WTO at one time advocated that until China and other totalitarian countries improved their Human Rights deficits the western world would not trade with them. Here we are in 2004, human rights are just as bad in China, and many other Third World countries, yet the whole western world is chomping at the bit to trade with them. Concerns for Human Right's seem to have taken a back seat and a corporate agenda of cheap labor seems to have replaced that concern. What matters now is profit margins, not Human Right's. Funny how principles go out the window when corporate profit is the motivator.

I believe that the United Nations sees themselves as some sort form of World governing body, which Canada keeps deferring to. When it is convenient our government representative's go on a U.S.A. bashing spree, and they cry about Canada's sovereignty. If we are in fact a sovereign country we cannot defer taxing of our citizens to any outside group, U.N. or otherwise. The NDP is really good at attempting to portray the U.S.A. as the big bogeyman south of our border. Let's not forget the fact that the Allies were losing the War, until the U.S.A. jumped in and saved our butts. Without the USA we might very well be singing the National Anthem of Germany right now, and now because our politician's have allowed our military to become a laughing stock, we are now reliant on the U.S.A. as our protector.

Certainly France will not be that protector, they were too cowardly to even fight for themselves in World War II. History has shown that aside from the Resistance, the French Government just sat back and allowed Germany to just march right in and take over.

[caesar]

Citizens do not or should not be buying military equipment and ammunition. We are paying for the UN now; unfortunately, other countries are not paying up. Why should we be controlled by a country such as the USA that does not act in good faith under a leadership like the present one.

As for your sudden concern for human rights; I do believe that the USA is number 2 on their list of worst offenders.

USA citizens have lost much of their democratic freedoms. In fact, the USA congress stated that Canada was too democratic and had too many civil rights.

Yet they think it is their God given right to force other country"s to adopt their idea of democracy. Those who protest or are in the wrong place at the wrong time are simply "collateral damage"

The U.N. cannot continue to interfere in the internal workings of countries. You cannot impose Western style democracy, if that's what you want to call it, on Middle Eastern or Asian cultures, it simply will not work.

That is what the USA is attempting to do; not the UN. The UN just facilitates those countries that wish to make the change.

[playfullfellow]

Citizens do not or should not be buying military equipment and ammunition. We are paying for the UN now; unfortunately, other countries are not paying up. Why should we be controlled by a country such as the USA that does not act in good faith under a leadership like the present one.

The same can be said for the UN, why should we allow the UN to dictate how we should live our lives? The UN has lost it's will to do what it was set up to do, stop conflict around the world. The UN of today is a rather different UN then the one of the 60's. The UN has become ineffective. UN troops are not even allowed to get involved in regional conflicts, all they can do is park themselves between 2 opposing forces. If these forces do not shoot directly at these troops, then they can use no force at all. So, everyone shoots around the UN troops and nothing happens. People on both sides get killed but the UN can do nothing to stop it. If you want the UN to be effective at stopping global conflicts, then it has to be given some teeth. There needs to be a permanent global armed force set up that can be mobilized on very short notice and they must have the ability to use force to stop conflicts, not be human shields.

[Stoker]

Stoker; your reference was Sweden not Switzerland; different countries. If you check Switzerland with those same sources; it affirms my earlier figure of 1 % of their GDP in 2004

Yeah, so? Switzerland is also the size of Nova Scotia Also they don't send troops overseas on UN peacekeeping missions.

Citizens do not or should not be buying military equipment and ammunition. We are paying for the UN now; unfortunately, other countries are not paying up. Why should we be controlled by a country such as the USA that does not act in good faith under a leadership like the present one.

Can we apply that to also Healthcare, law enforcement and Fire protection?

As for your sudden concern for human rights; I do believe that the USA is number 2 on their list of worst offenders.

You have a soucre?

USA citizens have lost much of their democratic freedoms. In fact, the USA congress stated that Canada was too democratic and had too many civil rights.

What rights have they lost? When and who said that about Canada?

Yet they think it is their God given right to force other country"s to adopt their idea of democracy. Those who protest or are in the wrong place at the wrong time are simply "collateral damage"

Who are they forcing democracy on?

That is what the USA is attempting to do; not the UN. The UN just facilitates those countries that wish to make the change.

And why does the United States (among other coutries) have to attempt to "interfere" in other countries or make war with other countries to defend itself and it's intrests?

If the United Nations worked, there wouldn't be a need....

As for the dues owed by the United States, they payed them a few years ago, and the reason they didn't pay them, was in protest to the International Criminal Court.......but notice the States didn't stop providing aid to UN orginizations?

[caesar]

Stoker; The USA is still behind in their UN dues as of August (268 million arrrears from prev years plus 363 for 2004); Japan is another nation in arrears 219 million at last count.

US Congress declared Canada too democratic

Homeland Security act has severely attacked rights in the USA.

I will look for a link that puts the USA at number 2 for human right violations

[Stoker]

Stoker; The USA is still behind in their UN dues as of August (268 million arrrears from prev years plus 363 for 2004); Japan is another nation in arrears 219 million at last count.

U.S. coughs up United Nations dues........... Feb 8th 2001

8th of Feburary 2001..........how long had Bush been president?

US Congress declared Canada too democratic

When?

Homeland Security act has severely attacked rights in the USA.

What rights has it attacked?

[caesar]

Stoker; that was 2001 while they were trying to get support to invade Iraq; My report is from September 2004. Back in debt.

Congress reported that about 4or 5 months ago; it did make the newspapers .

What rights has the homeland security act interfered with; privacy for one big one; they can and do follow your activiity on the internet, library, etc without ANY just cause. I, myself found that I was being followed.

I am sure that you are aware of this already; if you do ANY newspaper or internet reading. Just do your own search on rights violations / Homeland security act. I found 63,500 entries.

[Argus]

As for your sudden concern for human rights; I do believe that the USA is number 2 on their list of worst offenders.

USA citizens have lost much of their democratic freedoms.  In fact, the USA congress stated that Canada was too democratic and had too many civil rights.

Snort! Guffaw!

[Argus]

why shouldn't we have a seat as much as Russia??

Well, for one thing they were designed to go to the world's more powerful and influential nations.

And we are neither.

[Argus]

Didn't we bring up the prospect of becoming neutral before?

If we became neutral, say good-bye to NATO and Norad and all the other mutral defence treaties that we are part of, and then be prepared to increase defence spending signifacantly, since we will be all on our lonesome.......

You see, it costs money to be neutral, go ask the Swedes.....

I did; they spend only 1% of their GDP on their military; less than Canada does.

You are thinking of the Swiss. The Swedes spent 2.7%. Both countries have universal conscription and all adult males are required to participate in the reserves until middle age. As for the Swiss' "1%" most believe they fudge the figures. They're a secretive people. Take a look at the following quote:

The organisation of the army centres around cantonal militia. There is no officer corps and no Commander-in-Chief (except in times of war or general mobilisation). Every adult male owns his own army rifle, ammunition and a gas mask. National service starts at the age of 20. It involves four months of intensive training after which the man is eligible for call-up until the age of 32. From 32 to 43 (recently brought down from 50), he remains in the military reserves.

Within 48 hours, 400,000 men can be mobilised. All buildings built since WW II have air raid capacity. The entire population can be sheltered underground. Food and raw materials are continuously being stockpiled underneath the mountains. Emergency hospitals are maintained unused but fully equipped beneath ordinary hospitals.

As you drive through the country's motorways, you will occasionally see what looks like manhole covers, perhaps about 20 together, placed on the tarmac in a checkerboard pattern of 3 or 4 rows. They are found at all points of entry to the country, by major tunnels, at the foot of certain mountains, at the approaches to the big cities or at any other important strategic site. These are mines primed for explosion and controlled from Bern. In the event of invasion they can be used to close off and even, if necessary, destroy the entire country. They are the ultimate line of defense in Switzerland's highly developed national defensive system.

[Argus]

Stoker; your reference was Sweden not Switzerland; different countries. If you check Switzerland with those same sources; it affirms my earlier figure of 1 % of their GDP in 2004

I think they're lying, though. You can't maintain all the stuff they've got at that price, much less equip every adult male in the country to fight.