Should Canada leave NATO?

[-1=e^ipi]

That is about as clear as one can make it.

Clear as mud. So you are saying sovereignty is what international law says it is? In that case I don't see how it supports your idea of needing a large military.

How do you enforce these laws.

How to enforce laws? Have you heard of police?

Explain to me how any nation without a military would convince another nation to respect it's laws.

We don't need to if there are 0 nations that have a best interest in not respecting our sovereignty. I'm not even sure how a military would stop say the USA from disrespecting our sovereignty if they wanted to. What stops the USA from disrespecting Canadian sovereignty is self-interest.

Yes Canada is very lucky to be geographically placed on the map, but like many other Canadians you seem to think we are immune to threats from around the globe..

Indeed. Islamic terrorism is a major threat, made worse by stupid political decisions by Harper, Obama, Bush, Cameron, etc. If you want to prevent domestic terrorism in Canada, I think money would be better spent on CSIS than on the military.

I think someone once asked how a bunch of goat herders armed with small arms could hold back NATO for 10 plus years.

Really? People like Osama Bin Laden were goat herders?

But we as a nation must be prepared for every threat

I think doing a cost benefit analysis to see if it's worth the money and effort should be done to see if the preparations are worth while. A flying spaghetti monster could spring into existence tomorrow in Toronto and rain giant meat balls over the city killing thousands, but the probability of that is so low that it isn't worth preparing for.

so we no longer stand on guard for thee

If that's an attempt to appeal to my patriotism, it won't work because I do not have any.

would you re elect a government if anything happend and they refused to react because they spent that insurance money on some other program....

Decisions made in hindsight are different than decisions made in foresight. If the government made the best decision given the available information at the time, I see now reason to hold that against them.

Our military and it's current condition if faced with a serious threat such as a major earth quake

While a military is helpful, you don't need a military to deal with major earth quakes. If you are worried about Earth Quakes, then fund people to specialize in Earthquake relief.

dirty bomb

Then put money in CSIS or the police force instead of the military.

major hurricane

This is Canada.

and yet Canadians still complain on the size and the amount we spend on them

Yep.

Name one country in the world that does not have some form of military force, para military, or security forces let alone with a population as large as ours or as much coast line as we do.

I don't understand how relative to coast line is a sensible metric. The fact that we have so much coast line and only have land borders with 1 country is one of the reasons why we have less need for a military than say India.

Our nation has rarely spent 2 % of GDP on defense even with a military friendly government. In fact DND only dreams of 2 %,

I know it doesn't. I hope it stays that way.

what do spend the other 98 % of GDP on, if you wanted to take on a crusade why not health care

I can have a 'crusade' against both. Also, perhaps it is better to spend 1% less on military and put that money towards health care.

you blame the ukraine crisses on the west , i guess we forgot about russia role in that mess

No, there is plenty of blame to go around. Polarizing the situation by siding 100% with the Western Ukrainians while ignoring the issues and right to self-determination of the Crimeans and the Eastern Ukrainians did not help.

How effective has the UN been at diplomacy

I'm not a big fan of the UN either. Maybe we should leave them as well.

Liberal minded thinkers have said diplomacy should be the only wpn in a politicians tool box

Fortunately this isn't my position.

can you list some effective examples.....that have resolved issues without the need for military force......

Here is an example: it's called the Canadian-USA free trade agreement.

^ don't blame me if you are vague.

Would you risk your life or the life of your families on that fact or the other 38 million citizens

I don't even advocate abolishing the military. I'm just open to the idea.

And if it meant I had a few hundred more dollars per year to spend on stuff, maybe I would be for it.

it would not be long before we lost our full sovereignty, It would not be in the US best interest to have Canada undefended....and in their own interest they would be force to act.....

Cool, sounds like a potentially beneficial situation for Canada. There would be significant economic benefits from merging with the USA. Also having freedom of speech would be nice.

Edited August 27, 2015 by -1=e^ipi

[-1=e^ipi]

As a member of NORAD and NATO we have no need to challenge Russia alone.......

We can be a member of NORAD without being a member of NATO.

blah blah blah, during the cold war stuff happened.

Guess what. the cold war ended decades ago.

Get over it.

Using what happened during the cold war to justify being in NATO today makes no sense.

[Derek 2.0]

We can be a member of NORAD without being a member of NATO.

No, as the NORAD-NATO relationship is codependent with the senior partners allowance of information/intelligence sharing, further compounded with the Post 9/11 US-Canada Combined Defence Plan......

Guess what. the cold war ended decades ago.

Get over it.

Using what happened during the cold war to justify being in NATO today makes no sense.

Perhaps you'd best explain that to Putin.......whose air force has been conducting near monthly mock nuclear attacks along our coastlines (and our NATO allies in Europe, in addition to the non-NATO Swedes), with several months ago the largest in over 40 years, conducting simulated cruise missile attacks along the West Coast, from Alaska down to California.

Furthermore, by all means, you can also explain to Putin that he has no requirement to return such a large military footprint to the Russian Arctic, a military force in size or scope that hasn't been bested by the Russians since the Cold War.....

The only thing that doesn't make sense is your reasoning for wanting Canada to depart NATO, an alliance that affords far greater protection then Canada could afford on its own......

[Army Guy]

Clear as mud. So you are saying sovereignty is what international law says it is? In that case I don't see how it supports your idea of needing a large military.

I gave you 2 examples one from the Canadian government web site and one from Inter national law. Inter national law gives us the building bricks in which we can as a nation set up our own Sovereignty....it does not ensure you keep it, or grow upon it....that is the nation that does that...

I gave you the perfect example , the one in ref to our 200 mile exclusive economic zone, this is unique to Canada normal inter national waters only cover 12.5 miles....If there was no way to enforce this, here in Canada this is done via our navy or coast guard.... other nations would disregard this law and do what ever it wanted....then would would have things like the turbot war, in which Spain and a few other nations, had told canada they would fish any where they liked.....It ws our navy that enforced those Canadian laws.....and many more when it comes down to our nations Sovereignty....

I never said that Canada needs a large military, what i indicated was our current strength is to small, and under equipped for our land mass.

If that's an attempt to appeal to my patriotism, it won't work because I do not have any.

I get that, but there must be some buried deep inside your head, if there was'nt why all the whining, why does it bother you if you clearly have no feels for the country you reside in now.... there is always an airport open, and there will always be someone waiting in the wings to take your place,....

Cool, sounds like a potentially beneficial situation for Canada. There would be significant economic benefits from merging with the USA. Also having freedom of speech would be nice.

Grass is always greener on the other side.....until you cross the fence.....Not sure Americans want whiners , they after all represent everything you are again'st here.....I'm sorry i can not respond any more, you do not want to debate but instead make little jokes......if your not happy then take some action to change things , if you can't or won't then pack and leave.....maybe it will be me that saves a couple hundred bucks....

[-1=e^ipi]

I gave you the perfect example , the one in ref to our 200 mile exclusive economic zone, this is unique to Canada normal inter national waters only cover 12.5 miles....If there was no way to enforce this, here in Canada this is done via our navy or coast guard.

You don't need a military for a coast guard. We do not need to spend anywhere close to what we spend on military for sufficient navy to ensure ownership over the 200 mile exclusive economic zone.

I get that, but there must be some buried deep inside your head

Nope.

why does it bother you if you clearly have no feels for the country you reside in now....

1. Stupid laws or policies piss me off, be it in Canada, the USA, France or North Korea.

2. I value myself and other people. Bad policies cause people to suffer needlessly. A dollar that was spent on military could have been spent elsewhere, such as on cancer patients.

there is always an airport open, and there will always be someone waiting in the wings to take your place,....

Need money for that.

Grass is always greener on the other side.....until you cross the fence.

Silly cliche which isn't always true. Also, things like increased economies of scale and reduced barriers to trade would be mutually beneficial for both Canada and the USA.

Not sure Americans want whiners

Is this an attempt at using gender conditioning? If it is, it won't work as I reject gender roles.

they after all represent everything you are again'st here

The USA has plenty of stupid policies too. With respect to military spending, they are far worse than Canada.

I'm sorry i can not respond any more, you do not want to debate but instead make little jokes

I don't mind. Perhaps you feel this way because my questioning puts the basis of your self identity in doubt.

[Army Guy]

I don't mind. Perhaps you feel this way because my questioning puts the basis of your self identity in doubt.

Sorry, no self identity crises here, your not interested in debating , giving short jokes for answers is not what i'm interested in.

[-1=e^ipi]

your not interested in debating

If convincing yourself of this untruth makes you feel better about avoiding challenges to your world view then that's your choice.

[Army Guy]

I'm pretty sure the Conservatives have put us in that position now.

Your comment has thrown me for a loop, Smallc , have you changed directions, there was a time in which you could not say enough about the cons military spending....why the change for the NDP ?

[Smallc]

Your comment has thrown me for a loop, Smallc , have you changed directions, there was a time in which you could not say enough about the cons military spending....why the change for the NDP ?

There was a time when the Conservatives actually spent money on the military. They have now returned the budget to 2005 levels, with spending in real dollars dropping every year.

[Derek 2.0]

There was a time when the Conservatives actually spent money on the military. They have now returned the budget to 2005 levels, with spending in real dollars dropping every year.

As stated in the other thread, in 2005/06 we were fighting a major land war on the other side of the planet, now we aren't.........since the global financial crisis, we're one of the few nations that hasn't taking an axe to the defense budget (Look at the United States, British, Dutch), instead taking a scalpel to the operations and training budget

[Smallc]

As stated in the other thread, in 2005/06 we were fighting a major land war on the other side of the planet, now we aren't

You're pretending that the budget has not returned to 2005 levels in real terms. The Conservatives cut the base budget, while leaving the increases of 2% a year alone. That's a weasel way of keeping their promise.

since the global financial crisis, we're one of the few nations that hasn't taking an axe to the defense budget

The defence budget has borne a very large part of government spending restraint.

[Derek 2.0]

You're pretending that the budget has not returned to 2005 levels in real terms. The Conservatives cut the base budget, while leaving the increases of 2% a year alone. That's a weasel way of keeping their promise.

I'm not pretending anything, nor do I disagree with defense cuts or freezes outside of onetime procurements........

The defence budget has borne a very large part of government spending restraint.

You're talking out of your ass........both DND and Veterans Affairs were ring fenced with cuts in Cabinet. By percentage of budgets they saw the least cuts to their departments.

[Smallc]

You're talking out of your ass........both DND and Veterans Affairs were ring fenced with cuts in Cabinet. By percentage of budgets they saw the least cuts to their departments.

Maybe you fell for the whole moved to future years BS. Most of us didn't.

http://www.ctvnews.ca/politics/canada-talks-tough-on-ukraine-but-cuts-2-7b-from-defence-in-2015-1.1985886

[Smallc]

Also, from the article:

The Canada First Defence Strategy also promised that overseas missions would be paid for -- as other nations do -- through a special budgetary appropriation and not taken out of the departmental budget.

The war in Afghanistan was largely funded that way, but Nicholson's briefing papers show other deployments, notably the 2011 bombing campaign in Libya and the Afghan training mission, were not.

More lies.

[Derek 2.0]

Also, from the article:

More lies.

What do you feel the purpose of DND's annual Operations budget?

[Smallc]

What do you feel the purpose of DND's annual Operations budget?

Ongoing operations. Obviously, 2006 Harper agreed with me. He thought that extra expenditures caused by extra missions that we took on should have their own, separate funding, as is done by our allies.

Edited August 29, 2015 by Smallc

[Derek 2.0]

Ongoing operations. Obviously, 2006 Harper agreed with me. He thought that extra expenditures caused by extra missions that we took on should have their own, separate funding, as is done by our allies.

What is the difference between an operation and mission?

[Smallc]

What is the difference between an operation and mission?

Ongoing operations are things that the forces do regularly over and over again. Procurement, recruitment, training, general operations. Overseas combat and relief missions were, under the CFDS, to be funded separately. That stopped happening when it was no longer politically expedient.

[Derek 2.0]

Ongoing operations are things that the forces do regularly over and over again.

Please go own, as I've never been apart of an allocation and budgeting process at a unit (squadron) level........so, explain the things the forces to regularly over and over again...........humor me.

Using the current operation in Iraq for an example, if the RCAF budgeted x millions of dollars to fuel, maintain etc 2 CP-140s for a fiscal year, assuming said CP-140s would "do things regularly", but said two CP-140s were sent to Iraq, what do you think comes of the money that was earmarked to do things regularly out of Comox or Greenwood? Furthermore, if CSOR budgeted x for y number of operators at home for training etc, but instead, said forces were sent to Iraq, what do you think happens to money earmarked for training operators no longer in need of it?

[Smallc]

Using the current operation in Iraq for an example, if the RCAF budgeted x millions of dollars to fuel, maintain etc 2 CP-140s for a fiscal year, assuming said CP-140s would "do things regularly", but said two CP-140s were sent to Iraq, what do you think comes of the money that was earmarked to do things regularly out of Comox or Greenwood? Furthermore, if CSOR budgeted x for y number of operators at home for training etc, but instead, said forces were sent to Iraq, what do you think happens to money earmarked for training operators no longer in need of it?

Cutting through all of your attempts to cause confusion, it's very simple. Any costs that the mission creates over and above those that were already budgeted were to be financed separately under the CFDS. If that wasn't going to happen, then it shouldn't have been promised.

[Derek 2.0]

Cutting through all of your attempts to cause confusion, it's very simple. Any costs that the mission creates over and above those that were already budgeted were to be financed separately under the CFDS. If that wasn't going to happen, then it shouldn't have been promised.

Cause confusion? The statement is very clear, if the forces aren't spending the dollar figure budgeted for "regular operations" because a given unit is deployed overseas, what do you think happens to said budgeted amount for "regular operations"? Very simple concept.........

[Smallc]

Any amount over and above that was to be budgeted and funded separately.

[Derek 2.0]

Any amount over and above that was to be budgeted and funded separately.

And what amount was over and above the already budgeted Operations budget?

[Smallc]

And what amount was over and above the already budgeted Operations budget?

Well, seeing as they've now budgeted an addition $360M for this year's operations - that much. That was what they failed to do with the Afghan training mission, the Libya bombing mission, and anti ISIL mission up until this point.

[Derek 2.0]

Well, seeing as they've now budgeted an addition $360M for this year's operations - that much. That was what they failed to do with the Afghan training mission, the Libya bombing mission, and anti ISIL mission up until this point.

Huh? The Government adds additional funds, over and above the existing Operations budget and its a failure? And of the three examples you cited, which missions overran the Operations budget?

You're not answering the question, for what reason I don't (I would assume because you don't grasp the concept), instead parrot talking points......