Militarisation of Canada

[Unforgiven]

Yeah hang on a sec though, it's primarily the US that doesn't like the idea of Canada with a very strong military well able to defend our borders. I promise you that were Canada to begin a nuclear weapons program to defend our country from all comers including the US, there would be an occupation in less than two days by the US.

While I agree that we get on them often about their short comings, I preface that with their leadership at the moment. I remain positive that America has a very rich and vibrant inner child that is at the moment, hiding from the psycho monster that is presently acting as the moral conscience and ruler supreme.

We are a sorry strange lot..us Canadians...

We seem to like feeling superior to our southern neighbours, get angry when they don't pay attention to us..get even more angry when they do..but then alway expect that they will come to our rescue in case of war and at the same time fear them taking over. If the U.S. military is going to protect our coastlines (mainly because up until present we have no been able to) then thatey take an ownership outlook towards it.

Good or bad, if you want the world to pay much attention to you thean you require a millitary to back up your stances and claims...not that you need to us them but the fact that they are there.

We are not building up a millitary nation, we are correcting the wrongs of constant Liberal governments that have purposely dismantled it.

If you want to claim your nation..you need to defend it. If you want other nations to listen you need a big stick. Do you all really think North Korea, Islamic radicals, or any anti western groups have no thought of Canada on their radars?

So many think if they are anti American then we are safe....the world Lokks at NORTH AMERICA as of place, one set of values, one people...and truthfully with small exceptions in government policy and gun ownership...WE ARE!!

 

[Colpy]

Yeah hang on a sec though, it's primarily the US that doesn't like the idea of Canada with a very strong military well able to defend our borders. I promise you that were Canada to begin a nuclear weapons program to defend our country from all comers including the US, there would be an occupation in less than two days by the US.

.

This is simply untrue. The Americans have been coaxing us to increase the size and abilities of our military for 40 years. The US ambassador previous to the present one was taken to task for repeatedly criticizing Liberal military policy as too weak.

 

[ottawabill]

This is simply untrue. The Americans have been coaxing us to increase the size and abilities of our military for 40 years. The US ambassador previous to the present one was taken to task for repeatedly criticizing Liberal military policy as too weak.

Exactly...they really don't want to be the ones to efend us...but would feel compelled to if they had to. They would prefer (and so should we) that we take an active role in defending ourselves.

 

[MikeyDB]

Sorry please indulge the simple old man here....

If let's say Canada launched a 20 kiloton device against America....where would the fallout go?

If Israel or Iran or Pakistan or India or Syria or any other small nation used nukes...wouldn't there be nearly the same potential for fallout to contaminate themselves as well as the "enemy"?

Militarism of any nation is admission that all our "morality" all our "foreign diplomacy" all our great sounding phrases for rationality aren't worth a tinkers damn.

 

[BitWhys]

When it comes to our own defenses it all about balance of power and our role in it will always be diplomatic no matter how much hardware we stock up on.

Curious. We buy anything big lately that's NOT American?

 

[ottawabill]

Sorry please indulge the simple old man here....

If let's say Canada launched a 20 kiloton device against America....where would the fallout go?

If Israel or Iran or Pakistan or India or Syria or any other small nation used nukes...wouldn't there be nearly the same potential for fallout to contaminate themselves as well as the "enemy"?

Militarism of any nation is admission that all our "morality" all our "foreign diplomacy" all our great sounding phrases for rationality aren't worth a tinkers damn.

you know Mickey that the reason you can go on like this and theroize about our need for a millitary is because The U.S. has remained strong and thus able to prevent any real conflict from happening in our neck of thwe woods....would all be fairly mute point if you lived in Darfur?

 

[Toro]

When it comes to our own defenses it all about balance of power and our role in it will always be diplomatic no matter how much hardware we stock up on.

Curious. We buy anything big lately that's NOT American?

Used British subs.

 

[BitWhys]

Used British subs.

That was ages ago and they were EXACTLY what was needed for taking part in exercises with our friends to the South.

 

[BitWhys]

you know Mickey that the reason you can go on like this and theroize about our need for a millitary is because The U.S. has remained strong and thus able to prevent any real conflict from happening in our neck of thwe woods....would all be fairly mute point if you lived in Darfur?

More often than not balance of power is a three-way street.

 

[Zzarchov]

Sorry please indulge the simple old man here....

If let's say Canada launched a 20 kiloton device against America....where would the fallout go?

If Israel or Iran or Pakistan or India or Syria or any other small nation used nukes...wouldn't there be nearly the same potential for fallout to contaminate themselves as well as the "enemy"?

Militarism of any nation is admission that all our "morality" all our "foreign diplomacy" all our great sounding phrases for rationality aren't worth a tinkers damn.

a twenty kiloton bomb? It wouldn't go anywhere near us unless we hit detroit. Conventional bombs far exceed twenty kilotons. If we used a nuclear device, the fallouts (in dangerous levels) isn't as deadly as everyone assumes.

 

[Unforgiven]

This is simply untrue. The Americans have been coaxing us to increase the size and abilities of our military for 40 years. The US ambassador previous to the present one was taken to task for repeatedly criticizing Liberal military policy as too weak.

An increase to fight proxy wars for the US is was the US wants. Not very strong military well able to defend our borders. Seems to me the US wants someone they can economically strong arm into conflicts like Iraq, the way they did with Britain as part of a coalition.

I suggest that having nuclear war heads able to hit major American cities within a few minutes would pop this paranoid yankee's lid.

 

[Logic 7]

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.

:hello1: One of the smartest post i ever read in here , congrats.

 

[Lineman]

Congratulations on an anti war post from a person with Hitler as his avatar... Now that's #$%ked up!

 

[CDNBear]

"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"

Do you know why good men arre dying on the ground in Afghanistan? Because successive leftist asshats thought it better to gut our Military instead of invest in a vialbe National unit. Needed in times of disaster, Peacekeeping and yes...War.

We have men driving back from battle along routes that lead to one centeralised local. It isn't hard for the enemy to determine that location...It's called a base.

If we had the helo's we needed, we would be dying as we are. Troopers aren't dying in battle, they're dying when the fightings done.

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".

Oh grow up...Or at the least, look up the curicumlum at the Royal Military College. It never ceases to amaze me how people like you feel safe shooting off your mouth about things you know absolutely nothing about.

So whats going on?

People like you make shyte up as you go along.

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

Oh please, we sit just right of Carl Marx on a good day. Give your head a shake.

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.

Poorer areas???

You just caught that for the first time...It's an historic anomoly, seen and proven since before we were Canada, by every country in the world with a standing Army.

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.

And not one of the honourable members of LPoC or NDP have Munitions Manufactuers in their stock portfolio's???

You need to grow some broader horizons, or at least get out from under your ideology once in a while.

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.

No we have no enemies...17 people in Tdot didn't want to blow up civilians.

Good grief.

 

[Zzarchov]

:hello1: One of the smartest post i ever read in here , congrats.

Sorry Logic, its actually rather Naive and assumes a faulty and utopian view, which is know in the situation is false to begin with as your opponent is launching a nuclear strike.

But not retaliating, your poster has only increased the death toll.


Now all of his people are dead. Then the aggressor is still in perfect condition, and he can continue attacking nation after nation (killing each one, resulting in far more dead) until it either has world control or someone else fights back, resulting in the aggressor nation being destroyed ANYWAYS and piling up the heaping of extra dead on your hands.


Sometimes not fighting back is a cowardly thing to do, which gets more people killed.

 

[CDNBear]

Great post Z!!!

 

[lone wolf]

It's about time we got a new truck....

Wolf

 

[Toro]

It's about time we got a new truck....

Wolf

hahahahaahhaaha!

 

[iARTthere4iam]

In a case where a nuclear strike is poised to eliminate the entire country (as it normally would, seeing as how there are thousands of nukes in existence within a single country), sovereignty would mean nothing because the sovereign nation wouldn't exist anymore in a few minutes. Occupation is more favorable than annihilation.
Then there's the fact that nuclear fallout would likely contaminate the majority of a given continent even if there were only a few missiles, and cause more deaths than the initial blast would. So why would anyone want to occupy a nuclear wasteland? No crops would grow there, precautions would have to be taken every time you set foot outside (and that's only after the years of the fallout being in the air), and the water would still be radioactive. It's entirely inhospitable. The only purpose for nuclear warfare is death, not colonization. So sovereignty means nothing in the case of impending nuclear strike, and thus the best course of action is to cause the least death possible, by not engaging in nuclear combat no matter the conditions.
If a nation really were to try to blow EVERYONE up with nuclear missiles, then I could see the point in retaliating. But a nation that really would do that is unlikely to ever exist. Plus, they'd only end up killing themselves as a result of the fallout. They would know this if their nuclear physicists were skilled enough to enrich uranium.

Several problems with this post. The most obvious being that the only time a nuclear device has been used in war was against Japan. The result was the end of the war. And Japan is not a nuclear wasteland. The US did occupy Japan. Japan is an excellent beautiful country today.

 

[darkbeaver]

Several problems with this post. The most obvious being that the only time a nuclear device has been used in war was against Japan. The result was the end of the war. And Japan is not a nuclear wasteland. The US did occupy Japan. Japan is an excellent beautiful country today.

The war was for all intents and purposes over when the bombs were dropped. Several million American service personelle have served in post war Japan and Okinawa. Japan holds almost a trillian in US dollars, that's trouble.