Canada should renounce democracy

[turningrite]

10 minutes ago, paxrom said:

Not business, more like preventing iran from forming a land bridge to the Mediterranean. 

Wouldn't the Iranians have to go through Iraq to form a land bridge to the Med? Iraq and Iran haven't generally been bosom buddies but the relationship has improved since Saddam Hussein's ouster by the Americans. If the Americans were truly interested in keeping Iran away from the Mediterranean, why on earth wouldn't they have found a way to keep Saddam in power in Iraq?

Edited July 9, 2018 by turningrite

[paxamericana]

39 minutes ago, turningrite said:

It's my recollection that you reacted to my statement that Canada should become a militarily neutral country, like Sweden, Switzerland, or, as I've noted in some other posts, Mexico. In a recent column the Toronto Star writer Thomas Walkom discusses the usefulness of NATO in a post-Soviet environment and whether Canada has any legitimate role to play in remaining in the alliance (link 1 below). Otherwise, though, where do Canada's strategic interests rest? No country is likely to invade us due to our proximity to the U.S., whether or not we maintain substantial military capabilities. The U.S., in fact, is the only foreign country ever since Britain defeated France on the Plains of Abraham to invade what we now consider to be Canadian territory, and that was more than 200 years ago. Canada's 1867 Confederation was formed at least in part to thwart the possibility of an American takeover in the aftermath of the Civil War. If Trump wants to bluster and insult, let him do so, but why play into his game? The Europeans are getting fed up and are discussing what amounts to a 'Plan B' alternative to NATO. France's Macron proposes the creation of a new EU security force capable of confronting Russia, although the UK remains, at least for now and perhaps due to the Brexit outcome, more attached to the NATO model, which Macron's model seems intended to replace (see link 2 below). If Trump pushes too hard, he may well see traditional American allies abandon NATO altogether. Where, then, will Canada stand? Better, I think to use abandonment of the American-designed model as leverage while we can.

https://www.thestar.com/opinion/star-columnists/2018/07/05/what-is-the-point-of-nato.html

https://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-41403394

He-he, sure you can try to leave nato but without us military might nato is just an empty shell. UNLESS you all seriously start ramping up investment in your military industrial complex. Which isn't practical for smaller nato countries like canada. Germany is capable of developing said force but for political reasons opted not to. That said your strategic interest should be the artic ocean. But as mentioned before you have no ships and asset to defend said area. Highly doubt russia will take you seriously. They only respect hard power. OR stick to nato and pay your membership dues and rebuild your capabilities. Oh by the way the US is passing legislation to build 3 or 5 ice breakers for the artic ocean. So once again, you are going to need US assistance, probably complain about it and not pay for your fair share.

 

Look at poor canada tagging along US leadership. 

Edited July 9, 2018 by paxrom

[Queenmandy85]

1 hour ago, Army Guy said:

Perhaps you can provide a source ?

Canada's deficits and surpluses, 1963 to 2015

CBC News · Posted: Apr 21, 2015 4:58 PM ET | Last Updated: February 11, 2016

[Argus]

On ‎7‎/‎8‎/‎2018 at 3:10 PM, Queenmandy85 said:

Therefore, the question is, is a better equipped, larger Canadian Forces value for money? 

I disagree. The question is that if we are to recruit young Canadians into the military and send them off to dangerous war zones in pursuit of government foreign policy objectives, whatever those might be, are we honour bound to provide them with the best equipment that is available to safeguard their lives and safety?

My answer is that yes, we are. Which at a very minimum means sufficient modern, functioning armored vehicles to move them about as safe as possible. And enough of them so that the military here in Canada, not to mention the reserves, don't have to use school buses to move about.

[Argus]

On ‎7‎/‎8‎/‎2018 at 4:04 PM, paxrom said:

I don't blame them, they suffer from the same mal-content of public support for their military. The same was true for us not too long ago. 

Canada need strong leadership and frankly Trudeau isn't cutting butter.  They need strong leadership that can bring bi-partisan support for their military. 

And that bi[-partisan support of the military is why Australia, a country considerably smaller than us, can field a more powerful, more modern military than we do.

[turningrite]

23 minutes ago, paxrom said:

He-he, sure you can try to leave nato but without us military might nato is just an empty shell. UNLESS you all seriously start ramping up investment in your military industrial complex. Which isn't practical for smaller nato countries like canada. Germany is capable of developing said force but for political reasons opted not to. That said your strategic interest should be the artic ocean. But as mentioned before you have no ships and asset to defend said area. Highly doubt russia will take you seriously. They only respect hard power. OR stick to nato and pay your membership dues and rebuild your capabilities. Oh by the way the US is passing legislation to build 3 or 5 ice breakers for the artic ocean. So once again, you are going to need US assistance, probably complain about it and not pay for your fair share.

Look at poor canada tagging along US leadership.

My question is why, beyond a civil defense force and coastal patrol, we need military alliances at all? In fact, we'd probably be a lot better at coastal defense were we to focus on it rather than on participating in alliances. Further, there's literally no relationship between the extent of military spending and a country's prosperity. Germany, easily Europe's strongest economy, spends among the least on its military as a percentage of GDP (1.2% compared to Canada's 1.3%). And if spending as a percentage of GDP were a hallmark of prosperity, Russia (4.3%) would be a very rich country, wealthier on a per capita basis than the U.S. (3.1%) or Germany, which simply isn't the case . It's been argued that Trump's main agenda in promoting increased military spending by U.S. allies is to encourage them to buy American-made military hardware, thus further strengthening America's already massive military-industrial complex.

[Queenmandy85]

1 hour ago, Army Guy said:

One does not have to have an election to change defense policy, or white papers. all that needs to happen is the will to change it, Defense policy is changing all the time....Are you sure you have researched any of this....

If the change is that dramatic, the government would be honour bound to place it before the electorate. It would involve a drastic increase in taxes and it is particularly true if withdrawing from the nuclear no-proliferation treaty is proposed and if conscription is being proposed. 

As for confronting Russia in the arctic, if we aprehended Russian ships in the Arctic, do you seriously think they would back off and leave it at that?

[Queenmandy85]

I've been banging on about nuclear weapons but they alone don't neccessarily make a deterrent. Your adversary must also be convinced you are not afraid to use them. This is no easy task when no sane person would ever use them unless facing annihilation such as Isreal.

[paxamericana]

17 minutes ago, turningrite said:

My question is why, beyond a civil defense force and coastal patrol, we need military alliances at all? In fact, we'd probably be a lot better at coastal defense were we to focus on it rather than on participating in alliances. Further, there's literally no relationship between the extent of military spending and a country's prosperity. Germany, easily Europe's strongest economy, spends among the least on its military as a percentage of GDP (1.2% compared to Canada's 1.3%). And if spending as a percentage of GDP were a hallmark of prosperity, Russia (4.3%) would be a very rich country, wealthier on a per capita basis than the U.S. (3.1%) or Germany, which simply isn't the case . It's been argued that Trump's main agenda in promoting increased military spending by U.S. allies is to encourage them to buy American-made military hardware, thus further strengthening America's already massive military-industrial complex.

Before we discuss this issue further, I want to know why is there such contempt for your own military industrial complex? Is it really something to be proud of, letting your mic decay to the point of non-existence? Is this just a liberal thing or are all Canadians like this? Surely you realize by now that peace is expensive. Peace isn't achieved with everyone wishing it so, last I checked, my strategic calculus says to deter aggression one must have a credible threat against the use of force.

[paxamericana]

29 minutes ago, paxrom said:

My question is why, beyond a civil defense force and coastal patrol, we need military alliances at all?

To answer you as simply as possible, nations with allies thrive, those without dies. 

29 minutes ago, paxrom said:

It's been argued that Trump's main agenda in promoting increased military spending by U.S. allies is to encourage them to buy American-made military hardware, thus further strengthening America's already massive military-industrial complex.

More noise from baseless critics. Look you don't have to buy American made equipment, feel free to develop your own weapons. America buys some weapons from other countries too you know like the javelin and Israeli tank protection system. It's not about supporting a massive-military industrial complex it's about prudent reality. Why pay more to make something when you can buy it cheaper from a buddy. Economics 101. Last I checked, nobody was fielding a true 5th gen fighter...which is old news because we're developing the 6th gen fighter now at the skunk works project of Lockheed martin.

Edited July 9, 2018 by paxrom

[paxamericana]

19 minutes ago, Queenmandy85 said:

I've been banging on about nuclear weapons but they alone don't neccessarily make a deterrent. Your adversary must also be convinced you are not afraid to use them. This is no easy task when no sane person would ever use them unless facing annihilation such as Isreal.

It's not just nukes, its also a conventional forces too. If they attack you with a conventional force are you going to risk nuclear suicide by responding with nuclear weapons? The enemy will always seek to attack your weak side. That's basic military strategy since the days of Sun Tzu. There's a reason why the US military decided to adopt counter-insurgency as a core competency. 

[paxamericana]

55 minutes ago, Argus said:

And that bi[-partisan support of the military is why Australia, a country considerably smaller than us, can field a more powerful, more modern military than we do.

Wait wut? you're being out done by the ozzy? Holy cow canada you all need to get your shit together.

[GostHacked]

1 hour ago, paxrom said:

Not business, more like preventing iran from forming a land bridge to the Mediteranean sea. Word on the street is trump will try to make a deal with russia to keep iran out of syria allowing the us to withdraw. 

I know the 'why', it was more to see if you understood what is going on regarding Syria. Which seems to not be the case.

The reason is the pipelines to Europe and the control of resources from the M.E. to Europe. When Russia closed the gas taps to Europe based on the inability to pay the rates,  things got cold that winter.  SO Syria is not about the resources per se, but they are about the FLOW of said resources from one place to another.

[GostHacked]

1 hour ago, turningrite said:

Wouldn't the Iranians have to go through Iraq to form a land bridge to the Med? Iraq and Iran haven't generally been bosom buddies but the relationship has improved since Saddam Hussein's ouster by the Americans. If the Americans were truly interested in keeping Iran away from the Mediterranean, why on earth wouldn't they have found a way to keep Saddam in power in Iraq?

Great points indeed! But can be ignored when convenient. That's never going to change!

[paxamericana]

1 minute ago, GostHacked said:

I know the 'why', it was more to see if you understood what is going on regarding Syria. Which seems to not be the case.

The reason is the pipelines to Europe and the control of resources from the M.E. to Europe. When Russia closed the gas taps to Europe based on the inability to pay the rates,  things got cold that winter.  SO Syria is not about the resources per se, but they are about the FLOW of said resources from one place to another.

Maybe for the European but not Us we don't need said resources in syria. Probably why France want the US to stay in Syria but again, were it not for Iran, the US would probably not be there. 

[paxamericana]

1 minute ago, GostHacked said:

Great points indeed! But can be ignored when convenient. That's never going to change!

You're all are going to have to ask Dick Cheney about that. But for the most part though the current us strategy is curtailing Iran's malign influence in the region. 

[GostHacked]

10 minutes ago, paxrom said:

Maybe for the European but not Us we don't need said resources in syria. Probably why France want the US to stay in Syria but again, were it not for Iran, the US would probably not be there. 

No, the major player in Syria is not Iran, it is Russia. But as I said there are no resources IN Syria, it is like Afghanistan where it is the ROUTES of the resources that matter. But it took Russia and Iran to quell ISIS in Syria. The USA did not do one bit to combat ISIS as they are backed by the Saudis. Interesting that the USA participates in the same terrorism they are trying to 'fight' across the world. Also see Al Qeuda in Afghanistan.

10 minutes ago, paxrom said:

You're all are going to have to ask Dick Cheney about that. But for the most part though the current us strategy is curtailing Iran's malign influence in the region. 

Yeah I've heard this before and I still call bullshit on it. It's not about Iran. And it's not even about Assad's regime. It is about taking over the nation to put in the pipelines from the M.E. to the E.U.

[eyeball]

3 hours ago, Army Guy said:

Things must be quite around the old tree today, you even got a sense of humor I see, the bad man with the chain saw must be on holidays is he....

I've got my own saw, a couple of them in fact. The really funny thing is how often and seriously you folks worry about commies then back away from doing anything about them. It makes taking any of your fears seriously a little difficult.

[paxamericana]

13 minutes ago, GostHacked said:

No, the major player in Syria is not Iran, it is Russia. But as I said there are no resources IN Syria, it is like Afghanistan where it is the ROUTES of the resources that matter. But it took Russia and Iran to quell ISIS in Syria. The USA did not do one bit to combat ISIS as they are backed by the Saudis. Interesting that the USA participates in the same terrorism they are trying to 'fight' across the world. Also see Al Qeuda in Afghanistan.

Yeah I've heard this before and I still call bullshit on it. It's not about Iran. And it's not even about Assad's regime. It is about taking over the nation to put in the pipelines from the M.E. to the E.U.

You're going to have to provide cited sources on that. Sounds like you're buying into Russian subversion tactics. The us did not fight ISIS??? 

[turningrite]

6 hours ago, paxrom said:

To answer you as simply as possible, nations with allies thrive, those without dies. 

More noise from baseless critics. Look you don't have to buy American made equipment, feel free to develop your own weapons. America buys some weapons from other countries too you know like the javelin and Israeli tank protection system. It's not about supporting a massive-military industrial complex it's about prudent reality. Why pay more to make something when you can buy it cheaper from a buddy. Economics 101. Last I checked, nobody was fielding a true 5th gen fighter...which is old news because we're developing the 6th gen fighter now at the skunk works project of Lockheed martin.

To your first point, really? What about countries like Switzerland and Sweden, which are both neutral and are among the world's wealthiest and most stable nations?  And the most successful and stable country in Central America is Costa Rica, which long ago disbanded its military. The U.S. should be so lucky as to have all its Latin American neighbors be as stable as Costa Rica. How many of the migrants flowing across the U.S.-Mexico border are fleeing Costa Rica, after all?

To your second point, if we don't need the military hardware, why waste money making or buying it? Germany, which spends a smaller percentage of its GDP on its military than does Canada, seems to be doing very well. Why does Canada need stealth fighters, for instance? Unless a country has military ambitions, which Canada doesn't, what's the point of sinking massive amounts of money into military investment? The U.S. clearly has military ambitions, a reality that hasn't always served it well. It's up to American voters and politicians to decide on American military objectives and spending. It's not up to American voters and politicians to decide these things for other countries. And don't give me a line about the U.S. providing defense for Canada. That myth was blown apart last year when an American official confirmed that current U.S. policy doesn't afford Canada any protection from a missile attack (see link, below) even while we remain in an continental defense alliance (NORAD) with the U.S.! So, why bother? Let's be honest. We're on our own anyway.

https://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/policy-says-us-wont-defend-canada-from-missile-attack-norad-general/article36258719/

[paxamericana]

4 hours ago, turningrite said:

To your first point, really? What about countries like Switzerland and Sweden, which are both neutral and are among the world's wealthiest and most stable nations?  And the most successful and stable country in Central America is Costa Rica, which long ago disbanded its military. The U.S. should be so lucky as to have all its Latin American neighbors be as stable as Costa Rica. How many of the migrants flowing across the U.S.-Mexico border are fleeing Costa Rica, after all?

To your second point, if we don't need the military hardware, why waste money making or buying it? Germany, which spends a smaller percentage of its GDP on its military than does Canada, seems to be doing very well. Why does Canada need stealth fighters, for instance? Unless a country has military ambitions, which Canada doesn't, what's the point of sinking massive amounts of money into military investment? The U.S. clearly has military ambitions, a reality that hasn't always served it well. It's up to American voters and politicians to decide on American military objectives and spending. It's not up to American voters and politicians to decide these things for other countries. And don't give me a line about the U.S. providing defense for Canada. That myth was blown apart last year when an American official confirmed that current U.S. policy doesn't afford Canada any protection from a missile attack (see link, below) even while we remain in an continental defense alliance (NORAD) with the U.S.! So, why bother? Let's be honest. We're on our own anyway.

https://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/policy-says-us-wont-defend-canada-from-missile-attack-norad-general/article36258719/

1) Economically speaking if you're a bank its best to have as many customer as possible. That's a legitimate foreign policy. Is Canada going to become the world's bank ?  I don't think so. The Military can be summarize like this, they're the last 600 meter of your foreign policy. Now if you're advocating that Canada relinquish all if it's foreign policy then that's a legitimate strategy. But the question still remain, what about countering outside foreign policies that seek interest inside your own countries, how then do you plan to deal with that. Costa Rica and many of those countries adopting the neutrality model have decided long ago of letting go of any foreign policy objective and allowing stronger countries to dictate their policy. Basically become pawns. If you want to relinquish said control over your own destiny/fate then by all mean adopt such policies. I think Canada is sitting on some very important strategic resources and land mass so I highly doubt you're willing to let that go or see others try to take advantage of said resources. 

Here's an interesting abstract about the Swiss neutrality model by the way, which still required the purchase of military weapons. "Their armed neutrality, however, required modern weaponry. In search of this material Switzerland turned to the West, while refusing to purchase weapons from the East. The paper argues that Switzerland's self-imposed policy of armed neutrality increased Swiss dependence on western armaments, and thereby endangered its neutrality status and policy."https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/14682745.2010.536534

2) See what Putin did to Merkel when she met with him in Russia. See how he greeted John Bolton, the American ambassador. The Russian only respect strength of arms.  Germany and the rest of Europe are just as wary about Russia's foreign policy objective which is to reclaim the Baltic states and put them under Russian influence and become destabilized buffer states. Germany doesn't spend much on the military for various reason some of which include, not wanting to destabilize their current relationship with their neighboring NATO countries, bad blood still exist after world war 2 btw. Also obviously they are being protected by American military. We have at least 30k troops in the county which they desperately do not want to lose. 

But back to Canada since you brought up Germany, number two NATO deadbeat. Yes Trump made it clear that we will not defend you if you don't want to pay for it. Now will we defend you? That is up to the president's discretion when the time comes. But essentially Canada, your fate is not in your own hands, it's in ours, which bring me back to my first point. 

Edited July 10, 2018 by paxrom

[GostHacked]

15 hours ago, paxrom said:

You're going to have to provide cited sources on that. Sounds like you're buying into Russian subversion tactics. The us did not fight ISIS??? 

No, the USA was never fighting ISIS. They were supporting them via Saudi Arabia. You'd be naive to think Iran has more influence in Syria than Russia. Russia has their military in Syria,, troops, tanks, supply chains.  The USA via Turkey supported terrorists (or rebels of the Free Syrian Army) to operate out of Turkey and cross the border to do raids (documented in many places).  So the US has done more terrorism in Syria than Assad, Russia, Iran of who ever you can think of combined. 

Who helped drive ISIS out of parts of Iraq? Iran.

Who is helping to get ISIS out of Syria? Iran.

Who is creating more terrorism in the M.E?  The USA/Saudi Arabia/Israel trio.

[paxamericana]

10 minutes ago, GostHacked said:

No, the USA was never fighting ISIS. They were supporting them via Saudi Arabia. You'd be naive to think Iran has more influence in Syria than Russia. Russia has their military in Syria,, troops, tanks, supply chains.  The USA via Turkey supported terrorists (or rebels of the Free Syrian Army) to operate out of Turkey and cross the border to do raids (documented in many places).  So the US has done more terrorism in Syria than Assad, Russia, Iran of who ever you can think of combined. 

Who helped drive ISIS out of parts of Iraq? Iran.

Who is helping to get ISIS out of Syria? Iran.

Who is creating more terrorism in the M.E?  The USA/Saudi Arabia/Israel trio.

Cited sources?  

[Queenmandy85]

To ramp up defence spending, the Canadian Government needs to find roughly $14 Billion. There is a lot of competition for that money. Health care, law enforcement and the justice system, transportation infrastructure, energy infrastructure, and dozens of other areas have been under funded for decades. Furthermore, climate change is a problem that continues to be pushed down the road and the longer it remains unaddressed, the more expensive that is going to be. My question is, among all these issues, how do you convince the Canadian taxpayer to poney up another $510 dollars a year when they are on a waiting list for surgury or the guy who mugged them and left them crippled gets off because the courts are under funded? I listened to a caller on a talk radio show compaining the problem was taxes are too high and the government doesn't fix the roads. Now, western Canada has just lost all its bus service. How can DND compete with problems taxpayers see as more immediate?

[paxamericana]

18 minutes ago, Queenmandy85 said:

To ramp up defence spending, the Canadian Government needs to find roughly $14 Billion. There is a lot of competition for that money. Health care, law enforcement and the justice system, transportation infrastructure, energy infrastructure, and dozens of other areas have been under funded for decades. Furthermore, climate change is a problem that continues to be pushed down the road and the longer it remains unaddressed, the more expensive that is going to be. My question is, among all these issues, how do you convince the Canadian taxpayer to poney up another $510 dollars a year when they are on a waiting list for surgury or the guy who mugged them and left them crippled gets off because the courts are under funded? I listened to a caller on a talk radio show compaining the problem was taxes are too high and the government doesn't fix the roads. Now, western Canada has just lost all its bus service. How can DND compete with problems taxpayers see as more immediate?

Great question! So financially you're going to have to go into further deficit before you can make adjustment to other appropriation. That's the short answer. The long answer is Canada is going to need to encourage more business  growth similar to what trump did with tax cut to stimulate the economy. De-regulate things that are holding back business creation. Cut back on public areas for welfare and other social programs etc... there's a long list of things to do but the main point is to encourage gdp growth. Cough adopt free trade cough...

Edited July 10, 2018 by paxrom