Does Canada spend too little on defence?

[Twila]

RE: Does Canada spend too

I used to wear green khakis by the way

So your a autumn then.........

 

[I think not]

What a load of bull, Toro.

Framing the argument as "UN or war" is silly.

I realize that you prefer to frame the the argument as, "The rest of the world haas to do what the US tells them to," but that doesn't work. Your chosen country ignored the UN to start an illegal war and is now in the process of trying to destroy the UN. When ever anybody tries to speak out against what you are doing you yap about money and spew tales of doom. We're not buying it anymore.

And you demonstrate the ugly side of Canadian nationalism, the sad one that feeds on reflexive anti-Americanism. Its totally binary in your world. In your worldview, if the UN isn't working, then you're pro-war. In your worldview, if you don't fall in line with the dogma, you're a "Bush Supporter!"

There is no such thing as anti-Americanism :roll:

 

[Reverend Blair]

RE: Does Canada spend too

Yeah, here we go again. Because you cannot defend the indefensible things the US does, just whine that anybody who talks back is anti-American.

 

[Toro]

Re: RE: Does Canada spend too

Yeah, here we go again. Because you cannot defend the indefensible things the US does, just whine that anybody who talks back is anti-American.

No. You can't have a civil debate about whether or not the UN plays a useful role. YOU frame the debate as America at war, and everything falls by the wayside because that appears to be the only way you look at the world.

 

[Ocean Breeze]

What a load of bull, Toro.

Framing the argument as "UN or war" is silly.

I realize that you prefer to frame the the argument as, "The rest of the world haas to do what the US tells them to," but that doesn't work. Your chosen country ignored the UN to start an illegal war and is now in the process of trying to destroy the UN. When ever anybody tries to speak out against what you are doing you yap about money and spew tales of doom. We're not buying it anymore.

And you demonstrate the ugly side of Canadian nationalism, the sad one that feeds on reflexive anti-Americanism. Its totally binary in your world. In your worldview, if the UN isn't working, then you're pro-war. In your worldview, if you don't fall in line with the dogma, you're a "Bush Supporter!"

now, you are really not making any rational sense. You obviously have no clue as to what the CA world view is......and are just striking out in a feeble defensive mode because YOUR country has gotten itself into a major pickle...........and YOU KNOW IT.---or at least damned well should by now.


but dang........has this ever diverted from the original topic. :roll:

 

[Reverend Blair]

No. You can't have a civil debate about whether or not the UN plays a useful role.

They do play a useful role. There is no debate about that outside of the US. It is you who is trying to frame this in terms of whether the US should run things or not. You feel they should. The rest of the world feels they should not.

Go spin somewhere else, Republican boy.

 

[Toro]

No. You can't have a civil debate about whether or not the UN plays a useful role.

They do play a useful role. There is no debate about that outside of the US. It is you who is trying to frame this in terms of whether the US should run things or not. You feel they should. The rest of the world feels they should not.

Go spin somewhere else, Republican boy.

Its good to see the socialist hacks have their heads in the sand. God forbid if they question their precious little UN. You can live in fantasy RevWorld all you want but whether you like it or not, the UN hardly works without the US.

 

[Reverend Blair]

RE: Does Canada spend too

The UN operates on the basis of all countries getting a voice. I realize that you hate that idea, Bull-boy, but tough titty. Nobody is saying that the US shouldn't have a voice, just that they don't get to run things. Don't like it? Again, tough titty.

Here's a little more. Most Canadians want our military, which is what this thread is about, to work on peacekeeping missions through the UN. Most Canadians do not want our armed forces to be cannon fodder in a US war of imperialism, nor do they want the UN to be yet another arm of American belligerence in this world.

 

[I think not]

How much military spending is needed in your opinion Rev in order for Canada to play the role you have just outlined?

 

[Toro]

Re: RE: Does Canada spend too

The UN operates on the basis of all countries getting a voice. I realize that you hate that idea, Bull-boy, but tough titty. Nobody is saying that the US shouldn't have a voice, just that they don't get to run things. Don't like it? Again, tough titty.

Here's a little more. Most Canadians want our military, which is what this thread is about, to work on peacekeeping missions through the UN. Most Canadians do not want our armed forces to be cannon fodder in a US war of imperialism, nor do they want the UN to be yet another arm of American belligerence in this world.

Clearly you won't be happy unless the UN is being run by Marxists in a global government squelching freedom, but if the UN is to be effective, it needs the US. Otherwise, the most they'll do is sit around and discuss whether or not Darfur can be classified as a "genocide."

Cannon fodder, eh? Guess that's why there didn't go into Afghanistan. Oh wait, they did.

The purpose of the military is

1. Protect yourself.
2. Protect your allies.
3. Protect everyone else, but only after you've done the first two.

 

[Ocean Breeze]

"The purpose of the military is

1. Protect yourself.
2. Protect your allies.
3. Protect everyone else, but only after you've done the first two. "


that might be the US version. Please don't speak for any one else.

 

[I think not]

Re: RE: Does Canada spend too little on defence?

"The purpose of the military is

1. Protect yourself.
2. Protect your allies.
3. Protect everyone else, but only after you've done the first two. "


that might be the US version. Please don't speak for any one else.

1. Protect everyone else
2. Protect your allies.
3. Protect yourself, but only after you've done the first two

Is this the Canadian version?

 

[Ocean Breeze]

1. Protect everyone else
2. Protect your allies.
3. Protect yourself, but only after you've done the first two

Is this the Canadian version?

hmmmmm. there is much merit to that philosophy. It is a lot more humanitarian than the "other " version......which is selfish.self centred to the core.

Fascinating psychology here. by doing the first two, there is no real need to worry about protecting oneself , is there???


(btw: we don't advertize the CA version)

 

[no1important]

RE: Does Canada spend too

The thing is we are not an agressive belligerent nation like America. All we need is enough soldiers, sailors and airmen for peace keeping and thats what the public seems to want, if we want to be a "mini- america" we would elect Stephen Harper and thats not going to happen anytime soon.

 

[Ocean Breeze]

The thing is we are not an agressive belligerent nation like America

exactly right. ....and nor do we want to be. Our entire identity is different. The goal should continue to be a peace engendering nation.....develope/advance peace keeping troops that can assist in trouble spots world wide......when needed and asked for.(but not go in because "we" think they need change.

We assisted in Afganistan and had our troops killed by the US military. ( the US has a euphamism for this .....as they do for everything else) But the US knows that if it need assistance in a JUSTIFIED and VALID situation we will assist. But we have no problem saying NO when it is called for. (sure we put up with a lot of crap when we do......but we are used to it......so it just rolls off as more scum.) There is not an nation that hasn't been crapped on by the US.......(maybe Sweden and Switzerland..???) so we are all quite used to the vitriolic garbage that comes out of the US now.

(hmm. have friends in Sweden.....will have to ask them about that one)

(agree, Harper is scary as hell)

 

[Reverend Blair]

How much military spending is needed in your opinion Rev in order for Canada to play the role you have just outlined?

It depends how you look at it. "A lot," is the answer, but the answer is also, "A lot less than the other way around." Some peacekeeping equipment is cheaper (i.e. you don't need tanks) but the training is more expensive (you need to train the troops to be soldiers and peacekeepers and when to use which).

If you are looking for a straight dollar value, I'd say that nobody knows. Our forces have been allowed to deteriorate badly, and fixing them is going to be expensive. It can't all come at once either.

 

[Ocean Breeze]

Our forces have been allowed to deteriorate badly, and fixing them is going to be expensive.

indeed. part of this could be because they are redefining their role.

 

[I think not]

How much military spending is needed in your opinion Rev in order for Canada to play the role you have just outlined?

It depends how you look at it. "A lot," is the answer, but the answer is also, "A lot less than the other way around." Some peacekeeping equipment is cheaper (i.e. you don't need tanks) but the training is more expensive (you need to train the troops to be soldiers and peacekeepers and when to use which).

If you are looking for a straight dollar value, I'd say that nobody knows. Our forces have been allowed to deteriorate badly, and fixing them is going to be expensive. It can't all come at once either.

You're right it cannot all come at once. I take France as an example of military spending, about $50 billion, I wouldn't quite say you would need that much, but I would assume at least half of that, perhaps a little more.

 

[Toro]

1. Protect everyone else
2. Protect your allies.
3. Protect yourself, but only after you've done the first two

Is this the Canadian version?

hmmmmm. there is much merit to that philosophy. It is a lot more humanitarian than the "other " version......which is selfish.self centred to the core.

Fascinating psychology here. by doing the first two, there is no real need to worry about protecting oneself , is there???


(btw: we don't advertize the CA version)

Sadly it is for many ITN as you can see on this board. But, as I'm also sure you've figured out, its binary to some of these people. You are either for UN peacekeeping or for imperialistic death. There can't possibly be any other options in their binary world.

Ocean, you certainly cannot be serious. By that premise, its more important to protect complete strangers than it is family and friends. Canada is fortunate to be protected by geography and the greatest Superpower on earth (which must gall some of you). Because of this, Canada has the luxury of putting more emphasis on peacekeeping. But the purpose of the armed forces first, foremost and always is to protect ourselves. That's not selfish, that's sane. "There you go Mr. Intruder, kill all my friends and family. Sure wish there were the troops that I used my tax dollars to pay for were here but they're off protecting people in other countries."

 

[Reverend Blair]

You're right it cannot all come at once. I take France as an example of military spending, about $50 billion, I wouldn't quite say you would need that much, but I would assume at least half of that, perhaps a little more.

I'm loathe to put a dollar figure on it because everything is so politicized right now. That's something I'd do away with...give the military a mandate and a budget and let them decide what equipment they need, within that budget, to fulfill the mandate. Politicians know nothing about helicopters or boats, so the decisions to buy them should not be made by politicians.