On Guard for Thee Posted October 1, 2015 Report Share Posted October 1, 2015 Rapid deployment. That makes sense. We go quickly into an American battle before our Canadian parliament decides if Canada should get involved. There is absolutely no need for this kind of "integration" - this is unnecessary entanglement. Well we have had JTF2 for over 20 years now and they don't require the parliament's say so for deployment. I would assume it would be this type of unit that would team up in this deal, but details seem sketchy so far. Stay tuned. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Argus Posted October 1, 2015 Report Share Posted October 1, 2015 Note to Argus: it begins. Note to Michael Hardner, we just had a hysterical and silly topic on this. Why do we need another one? http://www.mapleleafweb.com/forums/topic/25038-canada-gives-up-military-independence/ Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GostHacked Posted October 1, 2015 Report Share Posted October 1, 2015 Part 1 of the plan to have a North American Union was integrated economies. Part 2 will be military and first responders. Part 3 will mean integrated governments. We are no longer a sovereign nation, maybe never really was. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
angrypenguin Posted October 1, 2015 Report Share Posted October 1, 2015 Did you know? We are listed as the 51st state in the Virginia DMV Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Argus Posted October 1, 2015 Report Share Posted October 1, 2015 Part 1 of the plan to have a North American Union was integrated economies. Part 2 will be military and first responders. Part 3 will mean integrated governments. We are no longer a sovereign nation, maybe never really was. Sigh. Conspiracy nonsense. Tinfoil hat stuff. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Derek 2.0 Posted October 1, 2015 Report Share Posted October 1, 2015 Sigh. Conspiracy nonsense. Tinfoil hat stuff. Canada's Jade Helm......flushes the kooks from the bushes, and with C-51 in place, makes for ease of dispatch of the black choppers. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Hardner Posted October 1, 2015 Report Share Posted October 1, 2015 Part 1 of the plan to have a North American Union was integrated economies. Part 2 will be military and first responders. Part 3 will mean integrated governments. We are no longer a sovereign nation, maybe never really was. Nobody has plans with that long of a timeline. These are just ideas, not 'plans'. And you didn't say if they were bad ideas either. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Derek 2.0 Posted October 1, 2015 Report Share Posted October 1, 2015 Nobody has plans with that long of a timeline. These are just ideas, not 'plans'. And you didn't say if they were bad ideas either. I disagree, this plan is a false flag, meant to distract from the real plan....... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Hardner Posted October 1, 2015 Report Share Posted October 1, 2015 I disagree, this plan is a false flag, meant to distract from the real plan....... Yes, with a 50-year planning horizon... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Derek 2.0 Posted October 1, 2015 Report Share Posted October 1, 2015 Yes, with a 50-year planning horizon... Nope, the planning horizon is limited to the sunset of Freedoms. which is directly squared to the increase in malleable metal alloy hats. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Topaz Posted October 1, 2015 Report Share Posted October 1, 2015 Well why don't u tell us about ALL the love that the Conservatives has and no hate or dislike? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Army Guy Posted October 3, 2015 Report Share Posted October 3, 2015 WOW.....this topic just takes my breath away....and your right the kooks are out of the bushes now.....Maybe just maybe if Canada had taken the defense of it's own Sovereignty serious we would not have to depend on the US assistance..... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dre Posted October 3, 2015 Report Share Posted October 3, 2015 WOW.....this topic just takes my breath away....and your right the kooks are out of the bushes now.....Maybe just maybe if Canada had taken the defense of it's own Sovereignty serious we would not have to depend on the US assistance..... Nope. No matter how seriously we took it or how much we spent, we would still be a small military power situated next door to the largest military power in human history. Even if we quadrupled spending people would still say the same thing. And as for depending on the US for assistance, I think its the opposite. We have sent troops to a number of wars where the US was the prime backer or initiator. We have fought for the Americans, Europeans, and others and we have never needed or asked for a single thing in return. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Army Guy Posted October 3, 2015 Report Share Posted October 3, 2015 Just so i understand what you are saying, are you saying things our current military size is just right.......and because we sit beside the largest super power in the world we can afford to sit back and forget about little things like sovereignty, foreign policy..... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
eyeball Posted October 3, 2015 Report Share Posted October 3, 2015 Just so i understand what you are saying, are you saying things our current military size is just right.......and because we sit beside the largest super power in the world we can afford to sit back and forget about little things like sovereignty, foreign policy..... Seems just fine to me. Ever read about the relationship between nesting great blue herons and bald eagles? Abstract: Pacific Northwest great blue herons (Ardea herodias fannini) appear to have modified nesting behaviour in response to the strong recent recovery of the bald eagle (Haliaeetus leucocephalus) population. Previously undescribed, herons now often nest in close association with some breeding eagles, even though eagles depredate heron nestlings, are implicated in the recent reproductive decline of herons, and may induce abandonment of heron breeding colonies. I tested the hypothesis that breeding herons gain protection from the territorial behaviour of eagles. Natural observations and simulated incursions showed that nesting eagles actively repel other eagles within at least 250m around the nest site, thereby establishing a relatively safe place for herons to nest. Surveys showed that 70% of heron nests and 19% of heron colonies were located within 200 metres of eagle nests with high reproductive success. These herons had greater reproductive success than those nesting far from eagle nests. Source Are there or are there not other military defensive strategies that mimic sound defensive strategies found in nature? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gleason Posted October 3, 2015 Report Share Posted October 3, 2015 On a scale of 1 to 10, how important do you believe "Military Independence" is and why? Please consider economical and geographical factors as well as NATO commitments. Personally I think this issue ranks an 8 (quite important) as a national priority. If our military armed forces are fully integrated Canada will share the blame for blunders and atrocities committed by U.S. troops, and therefore any terrorist consequences that come with the package. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Big Guy Posted October 3, 2015 Author Report Share Posted October 3, 2015 (edited) Just so i understand what you are saying, are you saying things our current military size is just right.......and because we sit beside the largest super power in the world we can afford to sit back and forget about little things like sovereignty, foreign policy..... I believe that sovereignty is something given or recognized in a nation by other nations. Canada lost its sovereignty years ago when the USA developed nuclear weapons. Canada is used by the USA as an international buffer for its aggressive foreign policy - and our current government has supported that position wholeheartedly. Canada will get military materials that the USA will allow it get. We will never be allowed to develop nuclear capability because with that capability you are respected as sovereign nation by the rest of the world. With nuclear capability a nation is suddenly "competitive" with nations which have focussed on size of military rather than weapons of mass destruction. Just ask Saddam and look how North Korea and Israel are treated. There is no foreseeable conflict in which we participate that will not have the USA leading our charge and telling us where to go. Under those conditions, I am quite prepared to allow the USA to continue pouring $trillions into their military technology and allow our tax money to be redirected to the Canadian quality of life. If that means that our military withers into the minimal that the Americans require, then so be it. No matter who pays for it, our military will do and go where they are told by the USA. I would prefer that the Americans then use their money - not ours. Americans take pride in the number of American soldiers who have been killed and crippled in stupid wars over the last 60 years. I take pride in the number of Canadians who are alive to-day because our leadership kept us out of those silly wars. Edited October 3, 2015 by Big Guy Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Army Guy Posted October 3, 2015 Report Share Posted October 3, 2015 On a scale of 1 to 10, how important do you believe "Military Independence" is and why? Please consider economical and geographical factors as well as NATO commitments. Personally I think this issue ranks an 8 (quite important) as a national priority. If our military armed forces are fully integrated Canada will share the blame for blunders and atrocities committed by U.S. troops, and therefore any terrorist consequences that come with the package. When we talk of Military independence, what does that mean exactly, for me it means having a military large enough and strong enough to be able to handle not only the nations day to day security issues, it's foreign policy issues, and maintain all of it's defensive agreements, but also able to defend the nation from an aggressor the same size as Canadian forces...without having the need for another nation to step in when required.... Currently all those tasks overwhelm our current Military, to the point it may only be able to do one or two of those tasks at the same time..... The consequences of not having a military that can accomplish all those tasks , means having agreements with other nations to fill in,such as the one being discussed..... it also means that another nation may do that by with it's own set of rules and regulations in order to protect it's own troops.....which is a loss of sovereignty unable to enforce our nations laws, unable to protect it's citizens, unable to enforce our own political will on any topic.....How does that not concern Canadians.....and yet the majority is quit happy to have things as there are today knowing full well it is a double edge sword.....And while America is one of our greatest allies, they will act in their own best interest....The Americans have been reminding us of that since forever, that we are free loaders..... Canadians have taken advantage of this alliance for far to long....it's time we paid for our own defence, to have a seat at the grown ups table, to be able to put a canadian spin on world events......or we sit down in the corner and STFU, because we don't have a voice, or nobody is willing to listen or take us seriously.... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Argus Posted October 3, 2015 Report Share Posted October 3, 2015 Nope. No matter how seriously we took it or how much we spent, we would still be a small military power situated next door to the largest military power in human history. Even if we quadrupled spending people would still say the same thing. Define 'small'. Let's compare to Switzerland, population 8 million, roughly one quarter that of Canada. Enemies? None. Regular military 135,000 (Canada has 68,000) Reserves 80,000 (canada has 27,000) So if we scale up what Switzerland has to our size we'd arrive at a force of 540,000 with 360,000 reserves. That is a quite respectable military force by anyone's measure. And I might point out that Switzerland probably has better social programs than Canada does, yet somehow they can afford it because they believe it's important. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Army Guy Posted October 3, 2015 Report Share Posted October 3, 2015 I believe that sovereignty is something given or recognized in a nation by other nations. That is part of it, but having sovereignty means alot more, a nation must earn that respect, it must have the means to enforce that sovereignty through alot of means not just militarily, but through it's courts, it's laws, its moral values, it's immigration policies, it's border protection services,CSIS, Coast Guard , RCMP, and the will of the people to stand by all of that....it must be able to defend all of that with force if necessary, if there is no consequences then nations might be tempted to take what they want when they want.... Canada lost its sovereignty years ago when the USA developed nuclear weapons. How so ? are you saying Canada has no say what so ever in any sovereign matters.....I disagree "alot" Canada and the US have gone through periods where there relations have been strained, Canadians have made their own way through history....on a vast topics that has not been in the US best interests. Canada is used by the USA as an international buffer for its aggressive foreign policy - and our current government has supported that position wholeheartedly. Perhaps those same policies where also in our best interests as well.... Canada will get military materials that the USA will allow it get. Can you provide an example? not sure i'm following you here... We will never be allowed to develop nuclear capability because with that capability you are respected as sovereign nation by the rest of the world. With nuclear capability a nation is suddenly "competitive" with nations which have focussed on size rather than weapons of mass destruction. Canada has always been afford the opportunity to develop Nuclear wpns, I think if you check history you'll find that it was Canadians that decided that it would not go down this route.....There is a misconception that people have thinking because you have Nuc wpns you are suddenly immune from outside aggression , how is that working for Israel by the way..... No matter who pays for it, our military will do and go where they are told by the USA. I would prefer that the Americans then use their money - not ours. Not true, the second invasion of Iraq is an example, Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Smallc Posted October 3, 2015 Report Share Posted October 3, 2015 Define 'small'. Let's compare to Switzerland, population 8 million, roughly one quarter that of Canada. Enemies? None. Regular military 135,000 (Canada has 68,000) Reserves 80,000 (canada has 27,000) So if we scale up what Switzerland has to our size we'd arrive at a force of 540,000 with 360,000 reserves. That is a quite respectable military force by anyone's measure. And I might point out that Switzerland probably has better social programs than Canada does, yet somehow they can afford it because they believe it's important. On the other hand, they only have fighter jets available during business hours Monday to Friday. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Big Guy Posted October 3, 2015 Author Report Share Posted October 3, 2015 Sorry Army Guy - I generally do not respond to parsing. In the past it had led to parsing of parsed responses of parsed opinions of ... and loses any sense of continuity for me. I still believe that the more we spend on armed forces, the more sophisticated weaponry we purchase then the more we will be expect to add to aggressive American foreign policy. We do not develop our own military capability, we purchase it from others. What country would sell us the latest military technology - technology that could be compromised, sold and used against that country? What possible aggression directed at Canada would the USA ignore? The only problems that we may have is with the North and against the USA. It might be Russian aggression but the USA would be protecting their interests and our only when they were the same. The USA will get from the Canadian North what the USA wants from the Canadian North. With our geopolitical position, I cannot see Canada ever being able to create a completely independent foreign policy but we can allow the USA to spend their own blood and bounty on their military and Canada reserve their monies for quality of Canadian lives. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dre Posted October 3, 2015 Report Share Posted October 3, 2015 (edited) Define 'small'. Let's compare to Switzerland, population 8 million, roughly one quarter that of Canada. Enemies? None. Regular military 135,000 (Canada has 68,000) Reserves 80,000 (canada has 27,000) So if we scale up what Switzerland has to our size we'd arrive at a force of 540,000 with 360,000 reserves. That is a quite respectable military force by anyone's measure. And I might point out that Switzerland probably has better social programs than Canada does, yet somehow they can afford it because they believe it's important. Im find with adopting Swiss staffing and funding levels, as long as we adopt the Swiss military doctrine as well, and elect a more Swiss styled government. The Swiss military doctrine is about strict territorial defense. Mostly geared towards an invasion by land by the USSR. They have airports and hangars carved out of remote mountain sides, and howitzers and artillary positions all over the country in strategic places. Id have no problem quadrupling the size of our military if I knew it was going to be used for territorial defense. But its not.. its used for ill-advised world policing projects, and poorly planned attempts at nation building. And those things damage our security and put us in danger. So as long as our government wants to have military interventionalism as its foreign policy then a small military is good because it starves them of the tools they need to prosecute that policy and makes us safer. Switzerland is governed by adults that can be trusted with more military spending. Edited October 3, 2015 by dre Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PIK Posted October 3, 2015 Report Share Posted October 3, 2015 Might as well be. We already are are giving them the milk for free. Might as well have the ring on our finger. ONT sends them free power at our expense. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Freddy Posted October 3, 2015 Report Share Posted October 3, 2015 ONT sends them free power at our expense. yep , I feel that pain too Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
.thumb.jpg.9a49e1b2f22a6d34a345152c50044aa9.jpg)
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.