Canadian Military Issues

[maplesyrup]

Actually governments are there to spend money, not save money. Seriously.

[Stoker]

Actually governments are there to spend money, not save money. Seriously.

So why don't they spend money on the military? And why do they spend money on a police force, firemen and paramedics?

[maplesyrup]

Because they have chosen to pay down the debt. Case closed pal!

[Stoker]

Because they have chosen to pay down the debt. Case closed pal!

So why not put forth my idea (only fund healthcare, fire and police when needed) and pay down the debt further?

[Slavik44]

Guys....I hate to break it to you, but we are not at war. When Canada is at war we'll get our act together militarily. Untill then we will continue to pay down the debt.

My house is not on fire, I'm not being attacked by a person at this moment and I'm not having a heart attack..........I want all my tax dollars back that go towards the local fire department, RCMP detachment and the BC Amblulance service.

With that said, the moment my house is on fire, I'm being attacked and I'm having a heart attack, then I want at that instance to start paying, thus start receiving the service.

Infact, I think the entire country should work like that. Let's save money by getting rid of the trained professionals, and only pay for them when we need them..........

Well I'm having a heart attack, I'm sure we can just "spit out a doctor" when we need one

then we can institute a user fee for the millitary in a time of war just like we would for the ambulance that shows up at your house.

[Stoker]

then we can institute a user fee for the millitary in a time of war  just like we would for the ambulance that shows up at your house.

I understand that your post was in jest, but I wish to be clear with MS.............If we don't fund the Paramedics (for example) they won't be there when we need them................just as the armed forces.

[maplesyrup]

Not true. If for some inexplicable reason we were attacked externally, Canadians would rise to the occassion just like they did in the first two World Wars.

Or are you suggesting Canada didn't contribute in the first two World Wars? We weren't prepared ahead of time then, and we survived, so why should we be now?

Until then our military will have to make do, as more Canadians would prefer to pay down the debt.

One thing Canada's military might want to look at is more involvement under the auspices of the United Nations, where several countries go as a team effort, that is a way of helping to reduce the costs. Anyway the more clout the UN has, the safer world we will be. Better for sure than having some terrorist nation like the US riding around the planet, taking the law into their own hands, with some kind of vigilanty justice.

And we could look at our overblown military bureaucracy, and maybe take out a paring knife there, so that our crack troops on the ground, ocean, & air, have the best equipment avaialble.

[Newfie Canadian]

Not true. If for some inexplicable reason we were attacked externally, Canadians would rise to the occassion just like they did in the first two World Wars.

I would suggest maplesyrup, that the only thing wrong with this statement is the time factor.

In the World Wars, time was available to raise an army and produce equipment and train them. In this day and age, that time would not be available because of faster equipment and longer range, more accurate weapons.

Until then our military will have to make do, as more Canadians would prefer to pay down the debt.

I don't like the idea of men and women risking their lives unnecessarily because the government wants to penny pinch. If they aren't going to give them the tools, prepare for more of what just happened.

One thing Canada's military might want to look at is more involvement under the auspices of the United Nations

Unfortunately, that's a political decision, not a military one. All the same, I like the idea.

And we could look at our overblown military bureaucracy, and maybe take out a paring knife there

I'm with you there %100.

[Stoker]

Not true. If for some inexplicable reason we were attacked externally, Canadians would rise to the occassion just like they did in the first two World Wars.

As the Newf said, time would be a factor........You can't build a modern warship in a couple of weeks or a modern tank or fighter aircraft in a mater of hours.

Or are you suggesting Canada didn't contribute in the first two World Wars? We weren't prepared ahead of time then, and we survived, so why should we be now?

And how many thousands of young Canadians died in both wars because they were rushed through training, thus were one day plowing a field in Saskatchewan, then a few weeks later fighting Germans in Orentano?

Until then our military will have to make do, as more Canadians would prefer to pay down the debt.

Well, let's cut funding towards education and healthcare, and put that money towards the debt also........education and healthcare can make due.

One thing Canada's military might want to look at is more involvement under the auspices of the United Nations, where several countries go as a team effort, that is a way of helping to reduce the costs. Anyway the more clout the UN has, the safer world we will be. Better for sure than having some terrorist nation like the US riding around the planet, taking the law into their own hands, with some kind of vigilanty justice.

Where do our intrests lie? IOW, how's more important to our well being: the security counicl members or the terrorists nation of the United States?

Also, were you opposed to Canada beinmg involved in the terrorists led action in Kosovo? Canadians fighting without UN involvement/permission

Do you think nobody should be taking part in the Sudan because the UN hasn't said to yet?

And we could look at our overblown military bureaucracy, and maybe take out a paring knife there, so that our crack troops on the ground, ocean, & air, have the best equipment avaialble.

What part of the "bureaucracy" would you cut? All modern armed forces have a large tail........so what would you cut?

[caesar]

Having a larger military does not protect you from attack. A large military makes other countries in dispute; see you as a threat and beef up their military. Why do you think N Korea, Iran, etc want nuclear weapons? Because Israel and the USA have them and they want to have the same threat.

[playfullfellow]

Having a larger military does not protect you from attack. A large military makes other countries in dispute; see you as a threat and beef up their military.

SO far this discussion hasn't been so much on a larger military but rather suppliying our troops with better equipment and support. Right now our military is not even capable of helping out in 2 different places at once. We have planes that are classified as antiques, helicopters that need almost 3 hours of repair time for every hour they fly, we have subs that leak, dont move and are a death trap. We have to hitch hike to send our troops to help around the world. We can't patrol our own shores adequately so we can't even keep out smugglers. If anyone invaded us from the sea, we wouldn't know until they arrived in Ottawa. No, if we are to have a military at all, be it for peace keeping or domestic protection, then we need to ensure our troops have the best, not some second hand or outdated crap.

[caesar]

Right now our military is not even capable of helping out in 2 different places at once

Lets not exaggerate. I do believe that we do have troops helping in more than two places.

[Stoker]

Having a larger military does not protect you from attack. A large military makes other countries in dispute; see you as a threat and beef up their military. Why do you think N Korea, Iran, etc want nuclear weapons? Because Israel and the USA have them and they want to have the same threat.

Thats the dumbest thing I've ever heard

You can't have your cake and eat it too caesar.........

A well equiped military, like nuclear weapons, serves as a deterrent.

With your logic, if we cut our police forces, crime would go down

Lets not exaggerate. I do believe that we do have troops helping in more than two places.

Barely. We had to take the body armour from the soldiers in Bosnia, to give to the soldiers in Afghanistain.

Besides, for a nation of our standing, our overseas deployments (in terms of numbers) our a joke.

[Argus]

Stoker.....there is only so much money available, somehow you are completely missing the point.

Wouldn't my plan save vast amounts of money?

You are not going to get him to answer that. Because to do so he'd have to point out that you can't "suddenly" have a police, fire and ambulance service just when you need them. Even to him the implications of that on the military are obvious.

It took us a dozen years to acquire new backpacks for the infantry. The ongoing soap opera involving new helicopters is into its 14th year with no sign of the new choppers. How long did it take us from the point we acknowledged we needed new frigates until they were finally built and delivered and ready? Twenty years?

Even if you remove the political incompetence factor the world is much smaller than it was in WW2 and it takes a lot longer to design and manufactur the kind of complex electronic systems that go into modern weapons. All wars now are "come as you are", and if your troops have nothing they die. That might not bother comfortable, fat, happy liberal Canadians, but it will mean a lot of dead soldiers for Canada.

[Argus]

Because they have chosen to pay down the debt. Case closed pal!

Most of our money doesn't go to paying down the debt. Much of it goes to graft and corruption. The various regional "economic incentive" programs amount to billions each year, and most of that money is directed towards Liberal friendly companies which create few new jobs but merely increase their profits.

[caesar]

Thats the dumbest thing I've ever heard 

You can't have your cake and eat it too caesar.........

A well equiped military, like nuclear weapons, serves as a deterrent.

It works both ways. Why do you think all these "rogue nations" are arming???? Why did the terrorists attack the USA???? Would they have attacked if they did not pose a threat to the terrorists and their agenda.

American and British soldiers in Iraq were poorly armed without the proper gear and ammunition.... so it is not an unique problem of Canada's. We are acting as "part" of an UN force or Nato most of the time. It is no disgrace to share equipment with other countries. I would prefer to be equipped to get our men out quickly ourselves; if the conditions required it; I realize that is important.

Things are never as black and white; as you think.

[Stoker]

You are not going to get him to answer that. Because to do so he'd have to point out that you can't "suddenly" have a police, fire and ambulance service just when you need them. Even to him the implications of that on the military are obvious.

I know that Thats why I asked it

It works both ways. Why do you think all these "rogue nations" are arming???? Why did the terrorists attack the USA???? Would they have attacked if they did not pose a threat to the terrorists and their agenda.

American and British soldiers in Iraq were poorly armed without the proper gear and ammunition.... so it is not an unique problem of Canada's. We are acting as "part" of an UN force or Nato most of the time. It is no disgrace to share equipment with other countries. I would prefer to be equipped to get our men out quickly ourselves; if the conditions required it; I realize that is important.

Things are never as black and white; as you think.

Whats your point here? To prove mine further?

Well armed military = deterence.

[Newfie Canadian]

The Chicoutimi has arrived in Scotland.

http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNews/stor...?hub=TopStories

As far as I am concerned, if the government wants to continue the policy of peacekeeping/peacemaking, as we're doing now in the Balkans and Afghanistan, we're going to have to come up with the funds for the military. It is obvious that they underfunded and under equipped.

We have no in air refueling planes, for example, which caused a group of Canadian planes to stop in Ireland, after the American refueling plane travelling with them developed problems.

I'm not asking for space age weapons and massive troop formations and nuclear weapons. But it would be nice to be reasonably self sufficient in regards to military capability.

[caesar]

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?

This does not translate to less police working/ It is a completely different situation. Canada, unlike the USA, does not consider ourselves to be the "policemen of the world" We do not act on our own. We are PART of a larger contingent. n We do not need to possess every type of military equipment. Although, I believe we got shafted on the subs; they are being repaired; some are on active duty. New equipment does not mean that they too would not have problems. I have problems with lots of NEW shoddy products that I purchase.

[Stoker]

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?

Can't think of that last time............but that proves my point further, the Swiss have a very capable army and air force, not to mention their terrain suits a defeceive stance.

With that said, the Swiss are a bad example when you compare "us and them". They have a neutral outlook on forgein policy and we don't.

This does not translate to less police working/ It is a completely different situation. Canada, unlike the USA, does not consider ourselves to be the "policemen of the world" We do not act on our own. We are PART of a larger contingent. n We do not need to possess every type of military equipment.

*Translation* We can underfund our military (unlike the other G8 nations) because the Americans will take care of us. Is that what your saying?

Since the Americans are "doing most of our share of the work", and paying for it, what right do we (as in Canadians) have to bitch and moan when they do something that is not to our liking?

[caesar]

Well, who do WE need protecting from. The USA causes a lot of the problems in the world. Canada at least pays its UN dues on time even though we have no9 seat on the security counci nor any veto. The American's misuse their veto for political reasons not morally right.

[Stoker]

Well, who do WE need protecting from.

Rogue states, terror, possably China in the future.....Really though, trying to predict who could pose a threat in the near future is as easy as trying to predict when a person will have a heart attack, be attacked by another person, or have their house catch fire.

Canada at least pays its UN dues on time even though we have no9 seat on the security counci nor any veto.

Do we deserve a seat? What about a veto?

The American's misuse their veto for political reasons not morally right.

Perhaps not moraly right to you or to those opposed to America, but is not defending ones self moral?

[caesar]

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??

[caesar]

Perhaps not moraly right to you or to those opposed to America, but is not defending ones self moral?

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.

[maplesyrup]

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).