Trudeau? Let me understand your point; although Trudeau retired as Prime Minister of Canada about 28 years ago, he is currently responsible for the current state of the Canadian armed forces? Now that is true global reach - from beyond the grave.
Canada wants military base in Germany
- Thread starter Angstrom
- Start date
Trudeau? Let me understand your point; although Trudeau retired as Prime Minister of Canada about 28 years ago, he is currently responsible for the current state of the Canadian armed forces? Now that is true global reach - from beyond the grave.
Or move the Schnitzl Haus to the CFB Esquimalt.
Not to mention he had only one vote among many in Parliament.
You have to give credit where credit is due... When PET put his mind towards destroying the military, he did a very thorough job of it and also made sure that any rebuilding efforts would be hampered by taking the extra steps of tanking the economy and going deep into debt.... Yep, it's fair to say that Trudeau is like one of those annoying songs that ya get stuck in your head and it comes back every so often to haunt you.
And he did all that on his own without the support of Parliament? In the end, just as is the case now, the people got what they deserved.
Oh, and concerning the military, were we ever invaded while Trudeau was in office?
So, that's your solution, is it?... Wait for the invasion and then build a military?
First we have to assess our enemies.
To the South, we have a friend (the USA). To the West, we have an ocean, with friends (Japan and South Korea, and increasingly China based on Harper's visit there recently). To the East, we have an ocean and more friends (the EU members, with whom we do have disagreements like with do with the US at times, but friends they are). To the North, we have tundra, another ocean, and more friends (Greenland, Sweden, Norway) and countries that are at worst benign (Russia).
Now we do have extremist terrorists, but it would seem teh RCMP would be in a better position to protect us against them than the military would, seeing that that fight is mostly at our airports.
So, pray tell, who is our big enemy who is planning on attacking us? North Korea? Even its ally China is tired of it and seems to have friendlier relations with South Korea. Iran? It values its trade agreement with China and China is not likely to let it start WWIII.
So who, pray tell?
Honestly, all Canada would really need would be some kind of international military force comprising a maximum 100,000 well trained and equipped men, funding for which could be shared between Canada and many countries.
But big-government statists could never suppport that because then how else could militarists create jobs in times of recession.
I say let the private sector create the jobs. Our military ought to be as big as we need it to be and no more.
Or are we expecting some intergalactic invasion I'm unaware of?
Why do some nations maintain armies Machjo?... Think about it for just a minute.
As gar as 'enemies' go, well, prior to WWI and WWII, Canada didn't have any enemies either.
That's why I'd suggested an international police force. I'm not saying no military, but merely a more efficient one. If you believe in small government, then certainly you also believe it ought to be run more like a business. International companies often merge to reduce overhead administrative costs. By having one international military force with let's say a maximum 100,000 well trained and equipped men, we could reduce administrative redundancy considerably.
Or do you believe in administrative overlap? Or does it have less to do with rational decision-making and more to do with irrational nationalistic emotionalism?
You mean like the UN?
Fact is Machjo, you can have this intl police force all you like, but the advent of one nation javing an army puts the group to the test.
That said, what good will 100,000 well armed men do against 5 million Chinese soldiers?
It has to do with understanding human nature.
Why do you think they have 5,000,000 soldiers? Are you suggesting we try to match them soldier for soldier?
And emotionalism.
Are you suggesting that you send 100,000 men to their deaths or are you saying that you'd surrender in advance.
That said, what's the use of your 100,000 international cops if they can't go toe-to-toe with someone.
Like I said, why do you think China has 5 million in the first place? Do you think they'd have as many if NATO had fewer?
And also it's not only numbers that matter. Look at how Iraqis and Afghans and Vietnam gave the US and the former Soviet Union a run for their money.
Generally speaking, even a superpower cannot control a foreign population unwilling to submit itself. Had the US tried to integrate Iraq as a US state for example, one could imagine that even the mighty US could not have done that. What makes you think China could do the same or would even be interested in doing the same?
In the end, China's army is big becouse NATO's are too. If ours shrinks, so would theirs.
Keep telling yourself that... The Chinese didn't build up their forces because of the piddly UN forces.
You sure are one trusting soul, aren't you.
Regardless, I suppose that the international police could just arm themselves with a bunch of nukes and even-out the odds that way
Honestly, I would not be entirely opposed to that idea. That way, by limiting ourselves to a well-equipped international police force of a max 100,000 men with access to nuclear submarines, we're not taking as many men away from the private sector workforce. Sure it would mean more money spent per soldier, and much of the priave sector workforce taken up by the military industrial complex, but honestly, with a max 100,000 men to train and equip, how big could such a complex really get? as a result, this would free up many men who would otherwise be taken up by the military so that they can be economically productive in the private sector civilian economy instead.
Also, with fewer troops, and more of them on submarines, battleships and aircraft carriers, there would not many left to serve as ground troops. This would essentially make it less threatening since it would no longer have the ability to invade another country, while still sending the message not to mess with its member-states.
Essentially, a force capable of destruction but not occupation.
How so? Why is it so important for us to possess the ability to invade. If we can destroy, that's the only deterrent we need. And by sharing this force between amany countries, the costs could be kept very low on a per-taxpayer basis.
Why do we need an inflated military economy?
Essentially, a force capable of destruction but not occupation.
How so? Why is it so important for us to possess the ability to invade. If we can destroy, that's the only deterrent we need. And by sharing this force between amany countries, the costs could be kept very low on a per-taxpayer basis.
Why do we need an inflated military economy?
Won't work... The 'force' will be a deterrent only at the spot where they are located. Every nation has the capacity to launch from multiple locations. So unless you plan to surround China or Russia, I predict that you won't have too much luck.
A military economy?... In Canada?
How did the quasi International Police Force do in Rwanda?
Ummm... last time I checked your people are there in Afghanistan as well.
Won't most of those private-sector workers be headed off to China to work in your global economy thing?
And we'll add, not enough money for education, social programs being cut.
Gotta have bigger and better military though.
The reds are coming. ....... Maybe........ At some time...........:roll: