Does Canada need a Military?

[PJ D-Dog]

Glad to see that there was a whole debate about the merrit of the conscription idea.  All of you have some excellent ideas.  It's obvious that the liberal government would never go for that type of tactic.

While Canada is trying to beef up the CF, they should also look at the operational capabilities.  Since the demise of the Airborn Regiment, there has not been a "911" force or quick reaction force established, there is JTF, but aside from that.  The CF should perhaps look at introducing a Royal Marines type unit or a Marine Corps of some sort to be Canada's quick reaction force.  This could instill new blood in the organization and have the first new unit raised since the introduction of the PPCLI (although I could be wrong on that one).

This could serve as a dual purpose.

1.  The psychological effect that the government is really serious about defense both to its citizens and to our NATO neighbours.

2.  It would spark interest among the population as many would want to be part of the new units etc.

Your thoughts, as per normal...

 

[Cpl.Banks]

I dunno about the marine units...Already we are trying to get 5000 reg member to Cf and 300 Reservists then + another say 2000 for a marine corp as you put it? do we have the capability to make a corp able to fight in land and sea like the U.S.M.C? New vehicles a new branch more staff ahhh the logistical problems !!!!! I dunno maybe it wouldnt be that hard but a new unit such as the marine corp might drain someof our units.Say some PPCLI guys wanna fight marine style so they transfer or change career...lower number of troops in existing batallions? my two cents
UBIQUE!!!!!!!

 

[oyaguy]

To me, something like National Service, be it military service, or work in national parks would be the equivalent to make work programs. Let's give these people "jobs" and we can pad our employment numbers. In other ways, say service, for a university education, we kind of already have that. The CF pays for your education, you put in the requisite number of years to "pay it off". The out for people not interested in military service are Student loans. Same thing, you get money get your education and you have to pay back with interest {though not till three months after school does the interest payments kick in, and the interest payments are pretty reasonable}.

I honestly don't see any pressing need for a National Service program.

 

[pipesnake]

I don't see conscription working. People aren't going to do a good job if they don't want to be there. Imagine trying to force someone through infantry battleschool? It's tough enough to get through that when you want to do it.

 

[MiNi_DeLtA_X]

same here soon i will be joinin the army  :threat:

 

[BigMcLargeHuge]

Greetings

to all my first post  weee!!

I was reading through this post and had to reply right away to what fortunecookie5084 stated. (im not sure how to work the little quote thing)    The barbarian hordes that you refer to did not cause the fall of Rome.  They were the straw that broke the camels back, the coup de grace of an already declining empire.  So many other major key factors caused the downfall of the Roman Empire.  I didnt read the rest of the post,  that just jumped out at me from the post as a classics student...

 

[PPCLI Guy]

(Of course we always must realize that there are important distinctions in the Canadian Forces: e.g. RCR officers are, generally, smarter and more handsome than the others, etc ...)

Must...not...engage...in...Regimental...flamewar :-X

Dave
VP

 

[Horse_Soldier]

Must...not...engage...in...Regimental...flamewar :-X

Dave
VP

What? You haven't learned to treat self-promotion from that particular regiment the same way you would a skeeter buzzing around your head  ;D

 

[Rick_Donald]

As I'm reading this thread I'm seeing all kinds of references to China and the U.S. (really???) being the aggressor states. There are probably over 50 countries in this world that could rear up and start murdering their own or neighbouring states peoples. The UN was designed to respond to those threats and protect the innocent civilians of these countries. Canada on it's own would never be able to defend itself from China or the US just based on our population alone. We'd run out of able bodies in no time. But as part of a multi national peacekeeping/peacemaking force we can afford to fight evil and tyranny around the world. In order to accomplish that Canada needs a healthy well equipped army.
I find that the majority of liberal Canadians and northern US democrats would rather sit in their nice heated homes and wait for the aggressors to burst through their front doors and start smashing their 52" big screen TV before taking any action. Sorry but that doesn't work for me. My wife and kids are sitting in that living room and war is no place for them.
It's too late to start fighting after the food, heat and electricity run out. You must be prepared to fight for what we have now and prevent it from ever being snatched away.

 

[Wizard of OZ]

It's too late to start fighting after the food, heat and electricity run out. You must be prepared to fight for what we have now and prevent it from ever being snatched away.


That is something that i totally agree with.  No matter the enemy or cause we must be able to defend ourselfs before we can defend others.

 

[mainerjohnthomas]

It's too late to start fighting after the food, heat and electricity run out. You must be prepared to fight for what we have now and prevent it from ever being snatched away.


That is something that i totally agree with.   No matter the enemy or cause we must be able to defend ourselfs before we can defend others.

      When I was in Kindergarten, our teacher played the folksong "One tin soldier" for the class, and asked us what lesson it held.  I knew the answer the first time I heard it.  The people on the mountain thought they were above the need to fight for what was theirs, so the died to the last woman and child, while the murdering barbarians looted the wreckage of a society that had grown to feeble to bother defending itself.  I filled with rage to think that their leaders had so betrayed them, as to leave them naked to the swords of their enemies.  It seems the teacher felt the lesson had something to do with violence not solving anything, but that seems hard to credit when the only survivors are looting the corpses of the side that beleived that.  Our leaders remind me much of that Kindergarten teacher, the media sings its modern folksong of this theoritical construct called peace; a thing that the world has not known in the whole of human history.  There is no historical basis for the assumption that peace is even possible for the human race; what is possible, is that well run, well defended pockets of prosperous civilization can be preserved, and increased as long as the civilization so defended retains the will to protect it.  We sit in a tiny pocket of civilization, and our defences are threadbare; the barbarians are as numerous as ever, poor and desperate, hungry and ambitious.  Canada must have an army capable of standing with our allies to stop the barbarians at someone elses gates; if it ever goes so far as to be fought at our own, we are already lost.  Keeping order at home, responding to natural disasters, and aiding our alliance partners to make sure the brushfires that burn the globe do not spread into a conflagration that will see Canadian cities burn.  When Hitler crossed (to remilitarize) the Rhine, a single platoon could have halted the rise of Nazi expansionism, do not think that our contribution can have no effect.

 

[oyaguy]

Does anyone else get an alarmist vibe on the latter posts of this forum?

Sorry, but where are the hordes?

Better yet, name two countries that could pull-off an invasion of Canada?

 

[mainerjohnthomas]

Does anyone else get an alarmist vibe on the latter posts of this forum?

Sorry, but where are the hordes?

Better yet, name two countries that could pull-off an invasion of Canada?

    In the early 1900's, an obscure Austrian noble was shot by a Serbian state sponsored terrorist orginization, the Austrians responded by shelling Sarajevo.  A few million dead later, the first world war was history.  Who says that the intention of destroying Canada will have any part of anyones plans?  I don't think the Austrians or Serbians had any plans involving what was to become the western front in France when either one of them fired the first shot, but war has this nasty tendancy to spill over.  The tensions over Taiwan/China, over India/Pakistan, the instability in the former Soviet South Asian republics, the turmoil in the Middle East, the re-emergence of the left wing in South America, and its attendant conflict with US interests, there are so many hot spots, and so many competing interests that no one can really say with any certainty from where the next crissis will emerge.  None of the world wars Canada has fought has been on her soil.  I don't suppose the next one will be any different.  The reality of the modern world is that there is no option of isolationism any more, our economies are all linked, and with the large immigrant populations in North America and Europe, there are few international conflicts that do not contain the risks of domestic involvement.  In Vancouver, the issue of Taiwanese independence actually became an election issue for a local MP.  It doesn't matter where the trouble starts, if we cannot keep a lid on it, its effects will quickly be here.  9/11 showed that there are no more safe seats for other peoples problems, in a heartbeat, they become your own.  As I said before, Canada requires the ability to respond to its own domestic crisis, and to deploy a credible force oversee's to act with its allies to make sure that the brushfires burning around the world stay small, and stay there.

 

[BigMcLargeHuge]

Estonia and Tuvalu!!!  They have mighty armies just over our borders!!  Everyone grab your gats  :threat:

But seriously: Does Canada need an army?

To aid with domestic disturbance and natural disasters, yes for sure, The idea that I can respond in times of emergencies to aid my fellow man within my country is great.

Most of you are going to dislike this next part but I'm entitled to my opinion and ill defend the right for you guys to hold yours

To stand with the United States? Why should we? The United States foreign policy is based on imperialism; the expansion for economic growth.  The only reason they establish a base or mission is to secure a resource (be it political or economical) or ensure its continuing existence.  No government gives to flying flocks about the "people" of a third world country.  Past wars did indeed have strong purposes but reason and war don't really go hand in hand. Why should our soldiers continue to suffer or die to oust "evil dictators" and replace them with democratic states were standards of living will increase but further cloud the image of poverty and oppresion.  Were a capitalistic state will enslave the population through greed.

Our soldiers of past and present are brave noble and professional, that I have no doubt about that.  May their souls rest with whatever god they believe in and may those alive receive protection.  

I do have strong disagreement about how our army is used.  

In perfect vacuum if Canada's forces should be deployed, I would like to see Canada's forces deployed in cooperation with other nations in order to separate warring nations and insure that aid reaches the prospective people while diplomatic negotiations can be successful.  
The result would be a government established of their choice that could be overseen by the UN.

To do this, then Canada obviously needs a military, a military which is well supplied well led well trained and well armed.  Not to such an extent the military spending is unportional to the amount that we spend helping our own but alot higher then it is now.

(random tangent the word barbarian comes from ancient Greece, anyone who was not a Athenian citizen spoke in a language which sounded like bar bar bar to the Athenians, hence barbarians.... write that in your journals everybody)

Canada cant even take care of its own people let alone start worrying about other countries, thousands live in the streets more in poverty and living conditions in the north are horrible.  Health care is failing, our schools are going to the can the very land we seek to protect is being raped and pillaged by lax environmental protection laws.  Canada's military is failing and it needs help big time.  

The brushfires burning out of control can be solved in a diplomatic way if anyone really cared. 

My final opinion: Canada needs an army in support of its people and as a army ready to defend the interests of PEOPLE not economy.

By this time most of you think im a big hippie pacifist, I can assure you I'm not.  I am part of the military  for the reasons I stated: I'm here to help the people of need, as an individual I can do this.

I urge anyone about to respond to take a deep breath before you start yelling at me   or typing loudly.

Cheers

 

[JBP]

It has been my PERSONAL opinion for quite some time that there will be another major war. As someone mentioned above, there are simply too many hotspots waiting to erupt, it's like a balancing act, eventually it's going to spill over... And sh*t will hit the fan!

I would be surprised if there isn't a major war within the next 20 years with at least 4-5 countries being heavily involved. And I don't mean some "coalition of the willing", I mean world war style, sending every troop they've got into theatre and drafting half the rest of able bodied population.

I really hope the world stabilizes enough to avoid such a thing, but with dwindling resources, more conflict over different idealisms and national lines being "drawn in the sand", it seems it's only time that it will take before blood is shed en masse once again...

So yes, Canada needs a military, whether we'll sit back and stay neutral and watch the fireworks... Or go to work with the boyz and get into the fray. We wouldn't BE a nation called Canada without a military. Point blank...

Joe

 

[jmackenzie_15]

Agreed Joe.

A possible near future scenario that could erupt any day really:

China invades taiwan,
North Korea takes advantage and attacks South Korea.

The number of countries that would be drawn into this madness alone would constitute another world war... if you mean that 'world war' is when countries from all over the world are involved in a war.Id call it a world war.Not to mention, probobly a very very messy scenario that I dont even like pondering the outcome of.  :-\

 

[PJ D-Dog]

To stand with the United States? Why should we? The United States foreign policy is based on imperialism; the expansion for economic growth.  The only reason they establish a base or mission is to secure a resource (be it political or economical) or ensure its continuing existence.  

So was the British policy when Canada sent troops to South Africa.  Of course every war is politically motivated.  That's just part of being a bunch of human beings.  Do you really think the soldier on the ground is lying awake at night worrying if the war is politically motivated?  If the war is just?  If the war is for the right cause?  When the balloon goes up and your unit, RNBR, gets mobilized, the last thing on your mind should be wether or not the war is politically motivated.  You signed the dotted line, you trained hard and now it's time to go.  Sometimes we have to have faith in our leaders.  We don't have to like them, we only need to have faith that what they are doing is the right thing for the greater good.

When one joins the military, one gives up a lot of rights that other citizens have.  We accept to live by an additional set of rules.  We also accept to live by certain priciples. One of them is loyalty.  Not just to your fellow soldiers but all the way up the chain of command and that includes the politicians that will send you to combat.

In my shop, I am serving with combat action vets from OIF one (op Iraqi Freedom).  Marines who have earned their combat action ribbons and let me tell you, that the last thing on their minds was whether or not the war is politically motivated.  They did not join the military to train hard, be professionals and then question if the war is right when the time comes to deploy.  I don't know of any Marine who does that (except for Cpl Henderson in Michael Moore's 911.  Incidently, that Marine is under investigation for his participation in that documentary and will probably go to jail).  They joined to serve their country, and when the country called, they were ready.  They weren't ready with questions and doubts.  They were ready with guts and guns and a fierce devotion to their beliefs.  They believe in their country and their Corps and when they signed that dotted line, they willingly gave up the right to question and disobey.

Canada has had nothing bad happen to it since the FLQ and OKA.  If they were flying planes into the Peace Tower or the Eaton's Center or the Sky Dome or some other place of national importance, I think your shoe would be on a different foot.  When Canadian civilian blood starts to flow (and I pray it never does), it won't matter if the cause for war is of a humanitarian one.  When your done blowing them up, you can rebuild them.

That is exactly what the US is doing in Iraq, Afghanistan and it's what the US has done in the past as well.  Let's not forget the rebuilding of Germany, France, Japan, UK, the Berlin Airlifts, the Balkans and the list goes on.  The US is the only country that will go to war with you and then or fight a war on your soil and then help you get back on your feet again.  No nation in history has ever done that.  The Brits used to exploit the countries it concoured until they got thrown out.

As for the UN, they have no credibility at all.  Take Rwanda....need I say more.  And who was undersecretary for Africa at the time, none other than Koffi Annan.  The UN is as credible as the League of Nations in my view.

I think I've said enough...

Regards,

PJ D-Dog

 

[pbi]

Estonia and Tuvalu!!!  They have mighty armies just over our borders!!  Everyone grab your gats  :threat:

But seriously: Does Canada need an army?

To aid with domestic disturbance and natural disasters, yes for sure, The idea that I can respond in times of emergencies to aid my fellow man within my country is great.

This isn't really the primary function of a military force. It is the job of the civil protective services, a national civil defence service, or a gendarmerie like France, Italy or Span have.

Most of you are going to dislike this next part but I'm entitled to my opinion and ill defend the right for you guys to hold yours

To stand with the United States? Why should we? The United States foreign policy is based on imperialism; the expansion for economic growth.  The only reason they establish a base or mission is to secure a resource (be it political or economical) or ensure its continuing existence.  No government gives to flying flocks about the "people" of a third world country.  Past wars did indeed have strong purposes but reason and war don't really go hand in hand. Why should our soldiers continue to suffer or die to oust "evil dictators" and replace them with democratic states were standards of living will increase but further cloud the image of poverty and oppresion.  

This entire paragraph is a pretty wild stab. Back up your accusations, especially things like"

The United States foreign policy is based on imperialism

" or

Were a capitalistic state will enslave the population through greed.

I have a hard time understanding either one.

And, please, explain to me when exactly Canadisns died doing this (other than in WWII):
"

Why should our soldiers continue to suffer or die to oust "evil dictators

Our soldiers of past and present are brave noble and professional, that I have no doubt about that.  May their souls rest with whatever god they believe in and may those alive receive protection.  

I do have strong disagreement about how our army is used.  

In perfect vacuum if Canada's forces should be deployed, I would like to see Canada's forces deployed in cooperation with other nations in order to separate warring nations and insure that aid reaches the prospective people while diplomatic negotiations can be successful.  
The result would be a government established of their choice that could be overseen by the UN.

Oh, good. That would guarantee success, wouldn't it. The reason operations like Kosovo, Somalia and now OEF/OIF have taken place is because the UN has proven itself largely incapable of handling serious military situations.

To do this, then Canada obviously needs a military, a military which is well supplied well led well trained and well armed.  Not to such an extent the military spending is unportional to the amount that we spend helping our own but alot higher then it is now.

(random tangent the word barbarian comes from ancient Greece, anyone who was not a Athenian citizen spoke in a language which sounded like bar bar bar to the Athenians, hence barbarians.... write that in your journals everybody)

No, I don't think so. IIRC, it is a Roman term that means "bearded ones" and refers to the hairy, bearded conditions of tribes like the Gauls and Germanii as opposed to the clean shaven Romans.

Canada cant even take care of its own people let alone start worrying about other countries, thousands live in the streets more in poverty and living conditions in the north are horrible.  Health care is failing, our schools are going to the can the very land we seek to protect is being raped and pillaged by lax environmental protection laws.  Canada's military is failing and it needs help big time.

What exactly is the connection between the first six problems and the last one? /color]

The brushfires burning out of control can be solved in a diplomatic way if anyone really cared.  

Really? Give me a few examples in which a) diplomacy was NOT attempted first; and b) diplomacy would actually have solved the problem and prevented conflict. You make the false assumption of many internationalists: that all parties to a conflict are rational actors who are a) amenable to; or   b) are even interested in,   diplomatic relations, except as a cover or delaying tactic.


My final opinion: Canada needs an army in support of its people and as a army ready to defend the interests of PEOPLE not economy.

Define why economic strength and security is not a vital national interest. As I said before on another thread, imagine Canada in February with no jobs, no food and no energy. This is another facile argument that fails to grasp what national interests are.

By this time most of you think im a big hippie pacifist, I can assure you I'm not.  I am part of the military  for the reasons I stated: I'm here to help the people of need, as an individual I can do this.

I suggest you need to ask yourself what you are actually doing in the military, and what your personal reaction will be if we get involved in an operation that falls in your "bad books". It seems to me that if you are true to your beliefs, you will have only two courses of action: a) quit, or   b) be prepared to be charged under the National Defence Act for disobedience of a lawful command.

I urge anyone about to respond to take a deep breath before you start yelling at me   or typing loudly.

Cheers

 

[Zipper]

Sorry pbi.

I have to agree with the kid on the American Imperialism. Although today we call it Hegemony. Read and you'll see alot of similarities between the US and Imperial Britain, Rome, etc...

As for the rest...

BigMC - Your idea that the UN will solve all your problems and thus we (Canada) being only a peacekeeping force is naive. No where has peacekeeping worked in the long run. Yes it has worked in the short term to stop the butchery, but those opposing sides then have no reason to sit down at a table and stop the horror. This is why so many peacekeeping mission of yesteryear are still going on today. In many cases today, the idea of peacemaking and thus heavier hitting forces going in and slapping both sides and "forcing" them to the table works better.

Yes, Canada has its own problems and should look to them more. But in order to do that should we get rid of the military and our foreign affairs office to channel the money towards domestic issues? Because to truly fix them, that is what it would take. Or we can do the best job we can, care for our people, and fix problems a little at a time.

As for supporting the people and not the economy. Well in a free market (social) democracy, the two pretty much go hand in hand. You cannot separate the two without either going to a different sort of government, or anarchy.

 

[Wizard of OZ]

The world is not as big as it used to be.  A major war in any of the areas mentioned in the preceding posts could and my eventually become the next world war.  Look at Syria and Iran as well are they next on the list for the US if they go will it be NK. 

With the world shrinking the possibility of a global conflict grows it does not diminish.  There for Canada must be able to; 1 protect its own borders, regardless of who our neighbour is, remember you keep your friends close but your enemies even closer. 2, we must be able to act on the world stage if there ever truly is a conflict of global interest we must be able to either respond or retaliate depending on the circumstance. If  9/11 had taken out the skydome or some other area packed with people what we have been able to do.  Remember we may have friends but we definitely have enemies.

If we are unable to do those things then we fail not only others who depend on us but ourselves and isn't that the point of a nation to protect their own?  I think it is no longer a question of do we need an military but what kind of military do we want?