Derek 2.0 Posted August 19, 2015 Report Posted August 19, 2015 oh my! Is this you admitting to the illegality of the invasion of the sovereign country of Iraq? Oh my! . . No, but then legalities of the war aside, International law didn't slow, let alone stop, the geo-political interests of the Americans. "influence events"... means what in practical terms? So a 10 day or so exercise once a year... I read the latest one had 2 scenarios; "sending boarding parties to an uncooperative vessel" & "the simulation of rescuing the complement of a grounded cruise ship". I didn't read anything about Harper wagging his finger at Putin! Clearly... the Canadian military has no practical capability in dealing with any genuine military sovereignty encroachment from another nation... not that one is expected/anticipated. Annual presence in and of itself is a key component in any claim to ones own sovereignty........possession is nine-tenths of the law etc.... An annual demonstration of our ability to operate within our own Arctic, a region of the Earth as foreign to the majority on this planet as the Moons of Jupiter, is exactly that, a demonstration of sovereignty........by far, the most important part conducted annually by both our Navy and Coast Guard is the Hydrographic surveying of the Arctic seabed...a prerequisite to any sovereignty claim going forwards. ----------- As to our own ability to deal with an encroachment of our sovereignty that in itself is dependent on a whole host of variables, in some instances, yes we very much can with the current force structure, in other scenarios, not a chance.......but then, that is why we as a middle power, sought defense alliances with Superpowers........in exchange we offer a level of contribution to ones mutual and collective defense. I expect this discussion would continue and head down the same repeat of others... the new ditty that I'll lay out there first, is the realization that Canada's CF-18s rarely fly in the "Harper Bombing War on Terror"... but those jets sure stoke the Harper selling fear campaign, hey! A reflection of target availability in a fluid military environment....... Quote
waldo Posted August 19, 2015 Report Posted August 19, 2015 Quit NATO? We should quit the UN...... we should create a union of civized States and promote countries where all children learn, both girls and boys. The world is not overpopulated. It simply lacks educated children. quit the UN... why? Perhaps you don't realize exactly what the UN is engaged in; since you pointedly mention 'educating children': Quote
Derek 2.0 Posted August 19, 2015 Report Posted August 19, 2015 oh really! Canada takes part in just 3% coalition airstrikes against ISIL: Fight doesn’t match Tory rhetoric A statistic that offers contrast to the size of the military conducting the majority of the strikes...........the air wing of a single American aircraft carrier would equal the contribution of all Western Allies involved in Iraq/Syria....... Quote
waldo Posted August 19, 2015 Report Posted August 19, 2015 No, but then legalities of the war aside, International law didn't slow, let alone stop, the geo-political interests of the Americans. see rogue nation . Annual presence in and of itself is a key component in any claim to ones own sovereignty........possession is nine-tenths of the law etc.... c'mon --- you're describing 10 days possession... how many 'tenths of the law is that'? Until a working base is established in the high Arctic, the rest is just photo-ops. You know... a working base with aircraft that can actually fly distance in the Arctic. (/F35snarc). And in terms of establishing real recognized in law Arctic sovereignty, it is the submissions to the UN that will do so... something I've detailed at length in other threads, particularly in regards to the mapping Russia has performed in support of it's submission. . As to our own ability to deal with an encroachment of our sovereignty that in itself is dependent on a whole host of variables, in some instances, yes we very much can with the current force structure, in other scenarios, not a chance.......but then, that is why we as a middle power, sought defense alliances with Superpowers........in exchange we offer a level of contribution to ones mutual and collective defense. care to speak to the sovereignty encroachment scenarios that Canada's military can actually deal with? That 'middle-power' categorization you speak to... why bother when the military really has no bark! As I ready-reach, if Canada is to maintain a NATO membership... contribution, as I'm aware, could be met by Canada playing a transport role - yes? Apply all those targeted F-35 loonies and apply them to the Coast Guard, to Search & Rescue, to big honkin' transport carriers, etc.. . A reflection of target availability in a fluid military environment....... target availability? Huh... not enough targets to go around??? Or... the error has been realized in propping up Assad? . Quote
waldo Posted August 19, 2015 Report Posted August 19, 2015 A statistic that offers contrast to the size of the military conducting the majority of the strikes...........the air wing of a single American aircraft carrier would equal the contribution of all Western Allies involved in Iraq/Syria....... so you agree that the participation doesn't match the Harper Conservative rhetoric - yes? Quote
Derek 2.0 Posted August 19, 2015 Report Posted August 19, 2015 c'mon --- you're describing 10 days possession... how many 'tenths of the law is that'? Until a working base is established in the high Arctic, the rest is just photo-ops. You know... a working base with aircraft that can actually fly distance in the Arctic. (/F35snarc). And in terms of establishing real recognized in law Arctic sovereignty, it is the submissions to the UN that will do so... something I've detailed at length in other threads, particularly in regards to the mapping Russia has performed in support of it's submission. .. No, Op Nanook is but several weeks, the continual presence we have (NWS, the Rangers, Arctic SAR) is enhanced by the larger annual military exercise, in addition to investments in the continual presence, as mentioned above, likewise investments in upgrades to national assets and new additions brought forth by the current Government. Continual Arctic airbases (further North than Yellowknife) are not needed (nor economically desirable), likewise the realization that fighters, granted by the affordance of trigonometry and the NWS, need not be based in the Arctic, likewise are rarely deployed that far North.......with actual aerial patrols conducted by both the RCAF's CP-140s and various GoC surveillance aircraft. I'm in full agreement with both underwater mapping (as conducted by the RCN annually) and on land survey, conducted by military, various of GoC departments and civilian, commercial concerns....... care to speak to the sovereignty encroachment scenarios that Canada's military can actually deal with? That 'middle-power' categorization you speak to... why bother when the military really has no bark! As I ready-reach, if Canada is to maintain a NATO membership... contribution, as I'm aware, could be met by Canada playing a transport role - yes? Apply all those targeted F-35 loonies and apply them to the Coast Guard, to Search & Rescue, to big honkin' transport carriers, etc.. Speaking in wide terms (as I have an aversion to Federal prison time), varying degrees of airborne encroachments, both accidental and purposeful, likewise varying degrees of maritime encroachments on our Atlantic and Pacific coastlines, further strengthened by the finalization of the Victoria class SSK becoming fully operational........ Those avenues you speak to (Coast Guard/SAR/Transport) are all areas we as a nation either due well currently or are in the near term process of improving, yet these are all roles that the majority of our other NATO allies already do well themselves. Likewise, by their very nature, are areas that are not seen as contributing any real skin to a game that is a potential military conflict........it is akin to the Waldo being out with his chums and a bar fight erupts of no fault of their own, and the Waldo is holding jackets and and calling for a taxi.......not a way to ingratiate ones self among ones now former friends...... Make no mistake, though to varying degrees throughout our history, the branches of the Canadian military have very much so demonstrated not only the ability to bark, but to bight........often despite the treatment of the Forces by the elected Government. target availability? Huh... not enough targets to go around??? Or... the error has been realized in propping up Assad? In some degrees yes to your first point, as the very nature of the conflict sees ones enemy able to blend into the landscape without any real degree of difficulty....... Quote
Derek 2.0 Posted August 19, 2015 Report Posted August 19, 2015 so you agree that the participation doesn't match the Harper Conservative rhetoric - yes? No, our "rhetoric" is very much proportional to our commitment......a commitment, that for a Middle Power, is substantive. Quote
PIK Posted August 19, 2015 Report Posted August 19, 2015 We should be leading NATO. Quote Toronto, like a roach motel in the middle of a pretty living room.
Topaz Posted August 19, 2015 Report Posted August 19, 2015 Question is can countries afford to be a member of this group when war is all we hear about. http://www.defenseone.com/politics/2015/06/nato-members-defense-spending-two-charts/116008/ Quote
Smallc Posted August 19, 2015 Report Posted August 19, 2015 There's probably less war than at any point in history. We don't spend enough money though. Quote
Peter F Posted August 19, 2015 Report Posted August 19, 2015 Would we still require the USA to protect us if a circumstance happened to arise? No we don't require nor have ever required the USA to protect us. The USofA doe's not do what Canada requires of them unless the USofA considers it to be in their (USA) interest. That Canada may require the USA to defend Canada doesn't mean squat to the USofA. But the USA, conceivably, has a definite interest that foreign powers not take over significant portions of Canada without their (the USA) say so and, I suspect, will definitely do their utmost to stop and reverse such things if they (the USA) doesn't approve. Quote A bayonet is a tool with a worker at both ends
-1=e^ipi Posted August 19, 2015 Author Report Posted August 19, 2015 You don't get the deterrent without the formal alliance. Deterrent from what? We aren't Poland. It is also a defence treaty since it is about defending the status quo - not trying to change it by force. The status quo involves Saudi Arabia funding wahabbism and therefore creating terrorism with it's oil money and the Turks preventing our Kurdish allies from being effective against ISIS. Somehow the status quo doesn't seem very desirable. Quote
Icebound Posted August 19, 2015 Report Posted August 19, 2015 (edited) There's probably less war than at any point in history. We don't spend enough money though. Of course not. How could we? All I see in these forums is how over- taxed we are.... Edited August 19, 2015 by Icebound Quote
Smallc Posted August 19, 2015 Report Posted August 19, 2015 Of course not. How could we? All I see in these forums is how over- taxed we are.... I don't know where you see that. People barely say that anymore. We could transfer $1B from the CBC to the military. That would be find with me. Quote
Derek 2.0 Posted August 19, 2015 Report Posted August 19, 2015 (edited) I don't know where you see that. People barely say that anymore. We could transfer $1B from the CBC to the military. That would be find with me. Or better yet, outside of procurement purchases, find further efficiencies from within the current budgetary framework before pouring more money on the fire.......base closures, amalgamation of various units and commands, trimming top heavy leadership and reducing civilian staff......and of course fixing the morass that is procurement........ Edited August 19, 2015 by Derek 2.0 Quote
Smallc Posted August 19, 2015 Report Posted August 19, 2015 Or better yet, outside of procurement purchases, find further efficiencies from within the current budgetary framework before pouring more money on the fire.......base closures, amalgamation of various units and commands, trimming top heavy leadership and reducing civilian staff......and of course fixing the morass that is procurement........ I agree 100%. Like, do we really need a base in Moosejaw? Goose Bay? Quote
Derek 2.0 Posted August 19, 2015 Report Posted August 19, 2015 I agree 100%. Like, do we really need a base in Moosejaw? Goose Bay? Moose Jaw should be kept (and if needed, expanded), likewise Goose Bay, which though remote, does serve a purpose, both for NORAD and Arctic sovereignty patrols and doesn't cost that much to operate..........Borden, Shilo, Winnipeg and North Bay should be closed, with the current schools, lodger units and in the case of North Bay, NORAD functions, spread across other larger bases. Quote
Argus Posted August 19, 2015 Report Posted August 19, 2015 (edited) Would we still require the USA to protect us if a circumstance happened to arise? Given the NDP would, in all likelihood, spectacularly downsize the military, I would think so. Edited August 19, 2015 by Argus Quote "A liberal is someone who claims to be open to all points of view — and then is surprised and offended to find there are other points of view.” William F Buckley
Smallc Posted August 19, 2015 Report Posted August 19, 2015 Winnipeg I'm not sure that Winnipeg should be closed as a rescue base, given it's close proximity to Lake Winnipeg, but then, I'm not sure how much it's actually used, so I'd be open to it. I don't agree that Goose Bay should be kept. Quote
Argus Posted August 19, 2015 Report Posted August 19, 2015 so you agree that the participation doesn't match the Harper Conservative rhetoric - yes? What rhetoric? Have they claimed we're doing mighty things with our six old fighters? Quote "A liberal is someone who claims to be open to all points of view — and then is surprised and offended to find there are other points of view.” William F Buckley
Derek 2.0 Posted August 19, 2015 Report Posted August 19, 2015 I'm not sure that Winnipeg should be closed as a rescue base, given it's close proximity to Lake Winnipeg, but then, I'm not sure how much it's actually used, so I'd be open to it. I don't agree that Goose Bay should be kept. Goose Bay has extensive facilities (left over) for fighters (and bombers) and is a forward deployment location for our Hornets........Winnipeg could be served by Trenton and Moose Jaw......a SAR bird could be forward deployed to Winnipeg (if needed) without much in the way of support, unlike fighters. Quote
waldo Posted August 19, 2015 Report Posted August 19, 2015 What rhetoric? Have they claimed we're doing mighty things with our six old fighters? c'mon, that was the rhetoric forged from the mighty HarperHammer... continually coming down on the Opposition parties for not supporting the bomb-trucks. So, as it turns out, they're really not doing much of anything over there... well, other than supporting the optics and false-front imagery that Harper presumes to leverage his "fear campaign" on! Quote
Argus Posted August 19, 2015 Report Posted August 19, 2015 (edited) c'mon, that was the rhetoric forged from the mighty HarperHammer... continually coming down on the Opposition parties for not supporting the bomb-trucks. So, as it turns out, they're really not doing much of anything over there... well, other than supporting the optics and false-front imagery that Harper presumes to leverage his "fear campaign" on! We're there as much for moral and political support as anything else. As usual, it's the Americans doing most of the work. If we had a better, more modern military, well... but we don't. In any event, joining with our allies is a lot more helpful than repudiating them and embracing the concept of "Not our problem" with what ISIS is doing. Say, wasn't it not that long ago the NDP was calling for us to intervene in Sudan? Edited August 19, 2015 by Argus Quote "A liberal is someone who claims to be open to all points of view — and then is surprised and offended to find there are other points of view.” William F Buckley
waldo Posted August 19, 2015 Report Posted August 19, 2015 (edited) We're there as much for moral and political support as anything else. symbolism then, hey! Imagine the Opposition leaders not willing to engage in symbolism for the sake of Harper's political expediency... and photo-opportunism in his fear campaign! Edited August 19, 2015 by waldo Quote
Argus Posted August 19, 2015 Report Posted August 19, 2015 (edited) symbolism then, hey! Imagine the Opposition leaders not willing to engage in symbolism for the sake of Harper's political expediency... and photo-opportunism in his fear campaign! Much of politics is about symbolism, even more of leadership is. As for political expediency, if Harper wanted to be politically expedient he'd be condemning the Israelis and making excuses for Arab violence, like Mulcair and Trudeau. After all, there are a lot more Muslim voters in Canada than there are Jews, and their numbers are growing exponentially. Edited August 19, 2015 by Argus Quote "A liberal is someone who claims to be open to all points of view — and then is surprised and offended to find there are other points of view.” William F Buckley
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.