Super Genius
Posts: 1,239 
Location: Edmonton
Location: Edmonton
August 7th, 2006, 07:37 AM
One thing about your post does irk me though:
Quoting
Machjo, i'm really not trying to be rude here, but that is a pretty stupid idea. How can two Nations share an Army, or better yet, three? One has to be in overal control, and therefore the instant that happens, it's not longer shared.
In that case, what about a shared US-Canadian force. This way, both naitons could save money by sharing the same force while still maintianing a large one. Granted, Canadians would ahve fears of this force running around fighting political wars all the time, so I suppose agreeing to rules as to under what circumstances such a force could be used would be a sticky point. Canada would tend to want to limit it to UN operations; the US, to issues of 'national interest'.
On the other hand, seeing that the US really does have its hands full right now in Iraq as well as wirth disaster relief on its own soil, along with record breaking deficit spending, maybe a time would come when the US would in fact not mind to some agreement curbing its adventurism in exchange for a shared military force which could save money for both sides. Who knows, maybe Britain would be interested in this too. This could lead to possibly the world's largest military force at relatively low per capita cost, thus allowing us to patrol the arctic without worrying so much about expenses sinse we wouldn't need to worry so much about having troops in Southern Canada since those in the Northern US would be covering that anyway. We'd also be assured access to British reenforcements in the event of a serious problem.
On the other hand, seeing that the US really does have its hands full right now in Iraq as well as wirth disaster relief on its own soil, along with record breaking deficit spending, maybe a time would come when the US would in fact not mind to some agreement curbing its adventurism in exchange for a shared military force which could save money for both sides. Who knows, maybe Britain would be interested in this too. This could lead to possibly the world's largest military force at relatively low per capita cost, thus allowing us to patrol the arctic without worrying so much about expenses sinse we wouldn't need to worry so much about having troops in Southern Canada since those in the Northern US would be covering that anyway. We'd also be assured access to British reenforcements in the event of a serious problem.
One thing about your post does irk me though:
Quote:
You embody the typical international stigma about Canada, assuming all we care about is U.N. missions. The bitter reality Machjo is that Canada is a war fighting Nation, having spent more time at war in the 20th Century than Peacekeeping. Lastly i'd like to draw your attention to Afghanistan, where currently there are over 2,000 Canadian soldiers serving in a combat role. That is very much a mission of "national interest".
Canada would tend to want to limit it to UN operations; the US, to issues of 'national interest'.
Clever Clogs
Posts: 526
Location: Pointy Rocks
Location: Pointy Rocks
August 7th, 2006, 10:59 AM
Well said, Mogz
I think that having ships in the north capable of patrolling all season is extememly important. As an added bonus to maintaing our sovereignity over the region, lots of research could be done here. Getting universities involved might bring on board some needed funds and access to new sensing technology. A northern port should be considered too.
Well said, Mogz
I think that having ships in the north capable of patrolling all season is extememly important. As an added bonus to maintaing our sovereignity over the region, lots of research could be done here. Getting universities involved might bring on board some needed funds and access to new sensing technology. A northern port should be considered too.
