Wasting Canadian Blood and Treasure

[Guest]

I am not sure what you mean, I do not see anyone discounting all of our nations interventions. I do not see nuclear warfare happening, or see conventional and asymmetrical warfare being a threat to Canada.

I can see it. If temperatures continue to climb, and we continue to use fresh, clean, delicious water to aid with hydrocarbon extraction. I'd nuke us for that.

[herples]

I can see it. If temperatures continue to climb, and we continue to use fresh, clean, delicious water to aid with hydrocarbon extraction. I'd nuke us for that.

That solution isn't environmentally friendly.

Edited July 24, 2016 by herples

[Guest]

That solution isn't environmentally friendly.

True, and I don't have any nukes anyway.

[bush_cheney2004]

Too late for that...Canada has been part of the nuclear weapons fuel cycle from the very beginning. Still is....for treasure.

[Derek 2.0]

150 years of our nation doesn't change the fact the scenario you present is extremely unlikely.

The last ~15 years of conflict would have seemed "unlikely" ~15 1/2 years ago.......

[Derek 2.0]

I am not sure what you mean, I do not see anyone discounting all of our nations interventions. I do not see nuclear warfare happening, or see conventional and asymmetrical warfare being a threat to Canada.

You might not, but the proverbial "Doomsday Clock" hasn't been this close to midnight since the early 1980s........its' presently 3 minutes to midnight, closer to midnight then through most of the Cold War......

[Smallc]

Are you really that ignorant? The largest threat to Canada, today, has been the same since Confederation.....Global instability........That could show itself in the form of a nuclear war, which would represent a direct physical threat (near end of life) to Canada or the the follow on effects of conventional and asymmetric warfare around the World on Canada.

So like was already said, a very unlikely scenario.

[Derek 2.0]

So like was already said, a very unlikely scenario.

Is Trudeau sending the Army to Europe because the threat of Putin is "unlikely"?

[Big Guy]

Don't lecture me on patriotism, I spent 34 years in the service of my country, 9 tours of duty in some of the worlds shit holes, and 5 years in Germany...and not once did I waiver in my duty or sacrifice for this nation..

I have reread our posts in this stream and I do owe you an apology. My assumption was that once a soldier takes the oath it is for life. It is not. It is only for the time of service. I have spoken to a few veterans who have informed me that it is expected that while in service, a soldier is not expected to criticize the government but once released or retired, there is no such expectation. I also see where you might read some of my comments as questioning your patriotism. That was never my intent and I apologize if it appeared to be.

For many years, I was employed by the government. I was told that any written public criticism of my employer my me would result in a hearing and possibly dismissal. Once I retired, I was no longer subject to that condition and have taken advantage of it. There is no reason why you would not have the same right.

I do apologize for any discomfort that I have caused you.

[Smallc]

Is Trudeau sending the Army to Europe because the threat of Putin is "unlikely"?

It's still an extremely unlikely threat.

[Derek 2.0]

It's still an extremely unlikely threat.

So is it more likely now, then say 5 years ago? 10 years ago? 25 years ago?

[Smallc]

So is it more likely now, then say 5 years ago? 10 years ago? 25 years ago?

I would say that it's slightly more likely, but still extremely unlikely. We're there to make Latvia feel better. That's it.

Edited July 24, 2016 by Smallc

[Derek 2.0]

I would say that it's slightly more likely, but not really. We're there to make Latvia feel better. That's it.

"Slightly more likely", but "not really".......I see.......So what are we making Latvia (and the rest of Eastern Europe) feel better about?

[Smallc]

"Slightly more likely", but "not really".......I see.......So what are we making Latvia (and the rest of Eastern Europe) feel better about?

Russia is not going to invade a NATO country. It would be the death of everyone, as it would quickly escalate into something no one could control.

[Derek 2.0]

Russia is not going to invade a NATO country. It would be the death of everyone, as it would quickly escalate into something no one could control.

So why are the Eastern Europeans in need of feeling better? Furthermore, as you suggest, since Russia isn't going to invade a NATO country, why is the Trudeau government wasting scarce resources in Europe?

[Smallc]

So why are the Eastern Europeans in need of feeling better? Furthermore, as you suggest, since Russia isn't going to invade a NATO country, why is the Trudeau government wasting scarce resources in Europe?

It's for two reasons (that I for some reason keep having to repeat).

To assure our NATO allies that we won't let Russia invade them - that they're full members of NATO under NATO protection

To assure Russia that NATO is not divided when it comes to defending every ally.

[Derek 2.0]

It's for two reasons (that I for some reason keep having to repeat).

You are having to repeat yourself because your position makes zero sense, well ever shifting.....

To assure our NATO allies that we won't let Russia invade them - that they're full members of NATO under NATO protection

Why do we need to assure them? I thought you just said Russia would never invade a NATO country?

To assure Russia that NATO is not divided when it comes to defending every ally.

Huh? What does internal NATO politics have to do with it? I thought you said Russia wouldn't invade a NATO country?

Right here:

Russia is not going to invade a NATO country. It would be the death of everyone, as it would quickly escalate into something no one could control.

If Russia isn't going to invade our NATO Allies, for fear of a nuclear response, hence is not a threat......why do the Eastern European NATO members need assurance and why do we need to assure Russia that we're not divided?

This is your logic vacuum, be prepared to repeat yourself, ignore me or admit that you're confused, because you aren't going to baffle me with your bullshit.

[Smallc]

You are having to repeat yourself because your position makes zero sense, well ever shifting.....

It hasn't shifted at all.

Why do we need to assure them? I thought you just said Russia would never invade a NATO country?

They're not going to.

Huh? What does internal NATO politics have to do with it? I thought you said Russia wouldn't invade a NATO country?

Russia needs to know that NATO will actually honour NATO rules for every NATO country. There was a feeling among the Baltic countries, and some say in Moscow, that NATO wouldn't really defend the former soviet countries in the same way they would places like the UK or Spain. This mission signals to both our allies and our potential enemy that there is only one tier of NATO country.

If Russia isn't going to invade our NATO Allies, for fear of a nuclear response, hence is not a threat......why do the Eastern European NATO members need assurance and why do we need to assure Russia that we're not divided?

Russia has to understand that the threat is real. If they don't take it seriously it would be bad for all of us.

This is your logic vacuum, be prepared to repeat yourself, ignore me or admit that you're confused, because you aren't going to baffle me with your bullshit.

Don't take it from me:

We decided to enhance our forward presence in the eastern part of our Alliance.

NATO will deploy by rotation four robust multinational battalions to Latvia, Lithuania, Estonia and Poland.

And we will take tailored measures to enhance our defence and deterrence in the Black Sea region.

There will also be more pre-positioned equipment and supplies.

This sends a clear message.

If any of our Allies is attacked, the whole Alliance will respond as one.

NATO does not seek confrontation.

Indeed, we seek a constructive dialogue with Russia.

But we will defend our Allies against any threats.

http://www.nato.int/cps/en/natohq/opinions_132349.htm?selectedLocale=en

That is why we are there - to make it clear to jittery allies and Russia that the status quo will continue.

Given that we've taken these measures, the likelihood of a Russian attack is 0

How do I know that? Because Russia didn't dare retaliate when Turkey shot down their jet.

[Derek 2.0]

Don't take it from me:

Don't worry, I don't, I know what the NATO and differing Government docs say, they don't support your confused point........and this returns us to the point from earlier today:

-You've stated there are no threats to Canada

-You've stated Russia wouldn't invade a NATO country

-YET-

-Canada needs to assure our allies in the Baltic States that Russia won't invade them

-Canada (and NATO) need to "whip out our army" to assure Putin that we would defend the Baltic States

-Ergo-

-Trudeau is either taking part in an unneeded military buildup in Eastern Europe, by whipping out our army to assure our NATO allies, likewise whipping out our army to deter Putin

-or-

- the Trudeau Government is addressing what they see as a conventional threat to Canada's interests, thus, this but one likely threat to Canada (something you say doesn't exist) is realistic enough to warrant a military response.

So are you wrong or is the Trudeau government and NATO wrong?

[Smallc]

-You've stated there are no threats to Canada

No likely existential threats.

You've stated Russia wouldn't invade a NATO country

That's correct

Canada needs to assure our allies in the Baltic States that Russia won't invade them

No - NATO needs to assure it's Baltic members that NATO will defend them, just as they would defend any other member.

Canada (and NATO) need to "whip out our army" to assure Putin that we would defend the Baltic States

That's right - NATO needs to ensure that Putin knows that its Baltic members are not to be toyed with, and that we have their back. This ensures my second point - Putin will not invade a NATO country.

Trudeau is either taking part in an unneeded military buildup in Eastern Europe, by whipping out our army to assure our NATO allies, likewise whipping out our army to deter Putin

I would actually agree that as an actual deterrent, it's mostly unneeded. That's not really what it is at all.

the Trudeau Government is addressing what they see as a conventional threat to Canada's interests, thus, this but one likely threat to Canada (something you say doesn't exist) is realistic enough to warrant a military response.

This doesn't pose an existential threat to Canada anymore than it does to the entire world. It's a remote threat.

[Derek 2.0]

No likely existential threats.

You don't consider a war between NATO and Russia an existential threat to Canada?

No - NATO needs to assure it's Baltic members that NATO will defend them, just as they would defend any other member.

Why? If Russia, as you said, won't invade a member of NATO, what is there to assure them of?

That's right - NATO needs to ensure that Putin knows that its Baltic members are not to be toyed with, and that we have their back. This ensures my second point - Putin will not invade a NATO country.

Huh? Putin won't invade a NATO nation........so we have to ensure Putin doesn't "toy" with NATO nations? Interesting orthodoxy you have there

I would actually agree that as an actual deterrent, it's mostly unneeded. That's not really what it is at all.

So if it isn't a deterrent, because Russia won't attack NATO, what is it?

This doesn't pose an existential threat to Canada anymore than it does to the entire world. It's a remote threat.

Again, you don't consider a war between Russia and NATO an existential threat to Canada and the World? Didn't you say that if Russia went to war with NATO:

It would be the death of everyone, as it would quickly escalate into something no one could control.

You don't consider a nuclear war an existential threat to Canada and the World?

Don you know what existential means?

[Smallc]

You don't consider a war between NATO and Russia an existential threat to Canada?

I don't consider it to be a likely outcome.

Why? If Russia, as you said, won't invade a member of NATO, what is there to assure them of?

I don't see a point in saying it again.

Huh? Putin won't invade a NATO nation........so we have to ensure Putin doesn't "toy" with NATO nations? Interesting orthodoxy you have there

So if it isn't a deterrent, because Russia won't attack NATO, what is it?

I don't feel the need to repeat it again.

Again, you don't consider a war between Russia and NATO an existential threat to Canada and the World? Didn't you say that if Russia went to war with NATO:

You don't consider a nuclear war an existential threat to Canada and the World?

You deliberately misrepresent what people say on a regular basis. This is no different.

[Derek 2.0]

You deliberately misrepresent what people say on a regular basis. This is no different.

I quoted your own words directly.......not my fault that your position is confused....

[Argus]

It's still an extremely unlikely threat.

International instability is unlikely? Especially in the event of a Trump victory down south?

[eyeball]

Simply put, common interests and geography.

Global destabilization is in our interests? I guess I've always known that.