Militarisation of Canada

[Karlin]

"Military lobby trumps civilian needs"
http://www.straightgoods.ca/ViewFeature7.cfm?REF=375

"Harper has chosen expensive military hardware instead of the promised icebreakers, which would have served civilian needs, and been civilian-controlled"

-------

The 2nd item is that Harper's vgovernment announced a $200 million payment for a 'military college' in Quebec.

I fear that a change in our youth could come of that spending: "Gee, I cannot afford university where costs keep going UP, but I could be an officer in the army 'cuz I get to go for free to the 'military college' and learn how to kill people better".

-------

So whats going on? It appears that Canada is leaning far to the right, going towards the flames instead of putting them out.

We are seeing militarisation "as an attitude" growing in Canada, which is utterly abhorant to pacifists and peacemongers, as well as environmentalists. Government spending on military is growing, educational factilites for military officer training are being built, recruiting efforts are growing [especially in pooer areas of Canada]. None of that is good news, and if it has something to do with the fake "War on Terror" then it is also silly and wastefull.

Militarisation of any nation is either in advance of some expected outbreak of war, or to serve the military-industrial alliance that sees huge amounts of money [see the previous thread!] going to the factories that produce military hardware. Those are the favorite 'corporate friends' of conservatives here and in America and around the world.

Environmentally, in this era of global warming where emissions continue to INCREASE, war would mean an escalation of greenhouse gasses emissions. Since that represents a far greater threat to our species than our enemies do, we must streer away from further militarisation. Besides, there is no enemy of Canada, and if the USA chooses to create enemies, let them fight their own stupid wars.

 

[MikeyDB]

Karlin

Is the next step from the consumer-society the military-society?

Is there any evidence to the veracity of this notion contained in an examination of history?

Think Nazii Germany for example....

 

[iARTthere4iam]

Re-opening a military college that should never have been closed is hardly the advent of a new naziism led by Canada. What is wrong with you people? Switzerland is not a military powerhouse, yet demands military service from all adults. It seems that the only independent (read- not unduly influenced by the USA) action that Canada can make is to renounce our military and disarm. Canada's proud military history should not be allowed to be rewritten by the antimilitary element.

 

[Minority Observer84]

As far as i'am concerned there are far more pressing issues that need support "social issues" things a conservative does not believe in

 

[Zzarchov]

So, what your saying is:

Its ok to sell out the most vulnerable members of our society if you have more pressing needs closer to home?

I know thats not what you mean to say, but it is.

Just because they are few, our northern citizens have every right not to be annexed against their wishes by a foreign government. Basic needs such as not being overtaken by a foreign nation are the primary responsibility of a federal government before social needs, even basic needs like water and electricity. Civilian icebreakers are pointless and do not establish sovereignty, military ones do. Thus they ensure the basic right of our most vulnerable citizens to be able to remain in their own country.

Im normally an NDP man, but the fact that only the conservatives are willing to stand up for the most basic of government responsibilities is making me want to vote for them. I mean, sure they will destroy much of the social structures I love about Canada, but that is all internal damage and can be repaired later. If you lose soveriegnty, its gone, forever.

 

[Minority Observer84]

So, what your saying is:

Its ok to sell out the most vulnerable members of our society if you have more pressing needs closer to home?

I know thats not what you mean to say, but it is.

Just because they are few, our northern citizens have every right not to be annexed against their wishes by a foreign government. Basic needs such as not being overtaken by a foreign nation are the primary responsibility of a federal government before social needs, even basic needs like water and electricity. Civilian icebreakers are pointless and do not establish sovereignty, military ones do. Thus they ensure the basic right of our most vulnerable citizens to be able to remain in their own country.

Im normally an NDP man, but the fact that only the conservatives are willing to stand up for the most basic of government responsibilities is making me want to vote for them. I mean, sure they will destroy much of the social structures I love about Canada, but that is all internal damage and can be repaired later. If you lose soveriegnty, its gone, forever.

Indeed it's not , like the article suggests Ice breakers for the civilian coast guard would actually server the communities in that area frigates on the other hand ...........

 

[#juan]

One of the major planks in Harper's platform was large, armed, icebreakers for the north. He has reneged on that promise in favour of small coastal patrol ships that won't travel in over three feet of ice. I don't know what he thinks these little ships will do.

 

[karrie]

Environmentally, in this era of global warming where emissions continue to INCREASE, war would mean an escalation of greenhouse gasses emissions. Since that represents a far greater threat to our species than our enemies do, we must streer away from further militarisation. Besides, there is no enemy of Canada, and if the USA chooses to create enemies, let them fight their own stupid wars.

Oh come now.... surely a world war would help with the whole population crisis, and reduce the carbon footprint of combatant countries more than hybrid cars will.

 

[Anachronism]

Canada shouldn't be attacking anyone. A standing army is needed to protect a country, yes, but attacking other countries and starting wars is most certainly not very important to that country's sovereignty.
MAD is a prime example of how fighting wars for the sake of fighting is stupid, stupid, stupid. If I ran a country and a nuclear strike were launched against it, I would not retaliate. I'd prevent the destruction of one more country by not attacking. See how much better that works than just blowing each other up? >.>
Anyway, the point is, an army to defend a country is the only army that's necessary.

 

[karrie]

If I ran a country and a nuclear strike were launched against it, I would not retaliate. I'd prevent the destruction of one more country by not attacking. See how much better that works than just blowing each other up? >.>

Are you joking? Does that seriously work better in your eyes? Letting your country be bombed, and just throwing your hands up in the air over it. I can't even imagine. Lets hope you never run a country, because your citizenry would be sitting ducks.

 

[Niflmir]

No need to worry about Canada retaliating with nuclear warheads - we don't have any! Which is ironic, seeing as how we are the world's leading supplier of uranium. We supply our uranium through the IAEA which ensures that none of our uranium is used for warheads. We are one of the few countries that respects the non proliferation agreement.

As for the whole military-industrial complex... don't we buy all our weapons second hand? When was the last time Canadians were innovating in the arms field? The sea-king perhaps?

 

[Zzarchov]

I'd doubt we're free and clear of nuclear abilities. I can easily believe we have none now, but there are missile silos up north, and we do have all the components for a nuclear device sitting around, if we really wanted them we could have them within a week.

 

[Niflmir]

I'd doubt we're free and clear of nuclear abilities. I can easily believe we have none now, but there are missile silos up north, and we do have all the components for a nuclear device sitting around, if we really wanted them we could have them within a week.

Sort of true. It would take quite a bit more than a week though. We use heavy water reactors in Canada, so we don't exactly have an abundance of enriched uranium sitting about. The plutonium could be seperated from the fissioning fuel if the reaction was stopped mid-cycle, but that is not very efficient and we certainly don't have the centrifuges to accomplish it. I am not sure how quickly we could get a diffusion system working for the seperation. As for intercontinental missiles, all of those belong to the US and are stationed at NATO bases. We could annex them, but that would certainly necessitate their usage.


Canada is very nearly the exemplary nation for nuclear activities. Our CANDU reactors are designed to minimize the use of enriched uranium and thus make nuclear energy possible without the availability of weapon's grade material. With the proper usage of CANDU reactors the only sign that would lead a person to believe that a nation is developing nuclear capabilities would be the construction of large centrifuges and/or diffusion chambers, without these a CANDU reactor is just an energy plant.

 

[Unforgiven]

I see that as a good thing but, we need to change our military priorities. Homeland Defence should be much higher and action on foreign soil much lower on the list. The North is going to become a very important place in the next 50 years. We as Canadians, own an awful lot of that and we should be ready and able to stand up to protect it and our soverignty from those who would ursurp that from us.

I can think of a few kids who would be better off going to a military college than what they've been getting up to here in Toronto.

"Military lobby trumps civilian needs"
http://www.straightgoods.ca/ViewFeature7.cfm?REF=375



-------

The 2nd item is that Harper's vgovernment announced a $200 million payment for a 'military college' in Quebec.

I fear that a change in our youth could come of that spending: "Gee, I cannot afford university where costs keep going UP, but I could be an officer in the army 'cuz I get to go for free to the 'military college' and learn how to kill people better".

-------

So whats going on? It appears that Canada is leaning far to the right, going towards the flames instead of putting them out.

We are seeing militarisation "as an attitude" growing in Canada, which is utterly abhorant to pacifists and peacemongers, as well as environmentalists. Government spending on military is growing, educational factilites for military officer training are being built, recruiting efforts are growing [especially in pooer areas of Canada]. None of that is good news, and if it has something to do with the fake "War on Terror" then it is also silly and wastefull.

Militarisation of any nation is either in advance of some expected outbreak of war, or to serve the military-industrial alliance that sees huge amounts of money [see the previous thread!] going to the factories that produce military hardware. Those are the favorite 'corporate friends' of conservatives here and in America and around the world.

Environmentally, in this era of global warming where emissions continue to INCREASE, war would mean an escalation of greenhouse gasses emissions. Since that represents a far greater threat to our species than our enemies do, we must streer away from further militarisation. Besides, there is no enemy of Canada, and if the USA chooses to create enemies, let them fight their own stupid wars.

 

[Toro]

Considering that Canada is amongst the lowest spenders relative to wealth in the entire industrialized world, I wouldn't be too worried that Canada is being "militarized."

 

[BitWhys]

What's wealth got to do with it?

 

[thomaska]

"militarized."

You guys better get used to spelling it that way too!:lol:

 

[Toro]

What's wealth got to do with it?

Is the US a more compassionate society because it spends several times more than Canada on social services?

 

[BitWhys]

Is the US a more compassionate society because it spends several times more than Canada on social services?

I dunno. You tell me.

better watch out, though. there's a troop of right-wingers around here that don't take too kindly to being compared to the States.

 

[tamarin]

I think Katrina put US compassion in a startlingly new light. Being compared to the Third World in international newspapers isn't a recommendation.