Does Canada need a Military?

[Blue Max]

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.

Zipper, excellent point. It reminds me of a paper I read of the point was, historically conflicts between combatants have ended because one side or the other was exhausted or beaten to a pulp, thus the willingness of one side to continue the fight was taken away eventually.

Of course this meant a very bloody conflict, usually and our modern (PC) sensibilities think there is a better way. Now jump to modern times (post WW2) were most conflicts do NOT run their course and exhaust the willingness of one side or the other to continue the fight.

When the UN or some other peace keeping force jumps in the middle of two combatants, this only gives time to one or both sides to rearm and lick their wounds. It does little to remove the compulsion to restart the fight at some later date, thus extending the missery for civilians into another generation.

Take the example of Iraq. The Americans overwhelmed the Iraqi forces so quickly that the hard core Iraqis were not really beaten into submission and were able to regroup and fight back as an insurgent force. Post WW2 Germany, the Germans were so beaten down by the war from all sides that there was not much if any interest in continuing the fight in any form by the hard core elements.

MHO,

Blue Max

 

[jarko]

The times are getting harder, we need a military.

 

[Infanteer]

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...

Sure, but is that necessarily a bad thing.   Considering that we did, generally, quite well under the British (read Ferguson's Empire) and that 50 years of US dominance, hegemony, or whatever you want to call it has brought us an unprecedented level of freedom and prosperity, I can't figure out why people treat the word like its the boogeyman.

If serving in the military means being assertive with our interests and often working alongside US Hegemony or furthering US imperialism, then so be it.   Better then living in the cave....

PS: BigLargewhatever, you better take PBI's advice - every soldier who's been around the block knows that "helping people" is some sort of pipedream - see you at the races....

 

[Zipper]

Sure, but is that necessarily a bad thing.   Considering that we did, generally, quite well under the British (read Ferguson's Empire) and that 50 years of US dominance, hegemony, or whatever you want to call it has brought us an unprecedented level of freedom and prosperity, I can't figure out why people treat the word like its the boogeyman.

If serving in the military means being assertive with our interests and often working alongside US Hegemony or furthering US imperialism, then so be it.   Better then living in the cave....

Thats all fine and dandy if your on the benefit side. However it is the fact that people, especially people in other countries who do not wish someone else from another country telling them what to do, how to live their lives, and how to conduct there own business within their own borders that is the main contention. I seem to remember that being enshrined in the UN charter someplace?

And you can say "we" did fine under the British empire. But the same cannot be said of the native peoples of those countries that the US or Britain (Spain, France, Italy, Netherlands, etc...) turned their "interests" towards. You could call it progress from our stand point. But they would call it interference and domination.

Where people lived for generation (even thousands of years) on subsistance off the land, we brought progress. Thus we brought disese, hunger, poverty, stress, etc.

The argument here is that we forced it upon them. They did not evolve as we did through their own means and willingness to progress. We shoved it upon them, told them this is how it must be done, and then left them to figure it out on their own.

Who wins? Sure as heck isn't them.

We do through exploitation of their resources, their cheap labour, and their lack of understanding of what it is to protect there own interests.

But I digress.

Hegemony's and Empires are fine if your willing participants from the get go. Its the rest that are not that don't like it.

 

[JBP]

Sure, but is that necessarily a bad thing.  Considering that we did, generally, quite well under the British (read Ferguson's Empire) and that 50 years of US dominance, hegemony, or whatever you want to call it has brought us an unprecedented level of freedom and prosperity, I can't figure out why people treat the word like its the boogeyman.

If serving in the military means being assertive with our interests and often working alongside US Hegemony or furthering US imperialism, then so be it.  Better then living in the cave....

PS: BigLargewhatever, you better take PBI's advice - every soldier who's been around the block knows that "helping people" is some sort of pipedream - see you at the races....

Slight rant ON:

Aha! And look what happened to all of those "great" nations and thier achievements eventually. They were all looked upon as tyrants, dominators and subjugators' of people... Also viewed as Evil itself in many cases... Rome, Britian, France, they all had thier big time. Many other nations' throughout history also...

It's human nature to not like the "big dog" on top, but how does one get to the top? By stepping on other people's BACKS....

Well Infanteer, if you want to fantasize about wearing the 52nd goddamn state patch on your uniform, have a blast. I don't think that's a great image to express when you're going to become an Officer in the Canadian Forces....  :  "Sure, I'd like to be apart of an American Imperialism!"..... God... Almost enough to make me sick! (IMHO only).. I'm not saying that simply as a knee-jerk reaction either. I wouldn't expect ANY member of the CF to WANT to join another country or be "subjugated"(sp?) by them. I don't care if we'd be joining Greece for all I care, as a member of the military I would expect and think that you'd /want/ to be loyal to your home nation and value what it has on it's own and have pride for your country...

Just my reaction to your opinions as someone who has always loved Canada and always will and a person who takes great pride in our nation and would expect those who swear an oath to DIE to defend it wouldn't want to just say, "Hey, well those guys over there sure seem tough, let's drop what we're doing (Canada) and just come under thier flag!!!"...

Slight rant OFF:

Obviously that hit abit of a sore spot.
- Regardless

 

[Spr.Earl]

Yes we do,too stop the American hoards form buying our Beer!!

 

[PJ D-Dog]

I wouldn't expect ANY member of the CF to WANT to join another country or be "subjugated"(sp?) by them. I don't care if we'd be joining Greece for all I care, as a member of the military I would expect and think that you'd /want/ to be loyal to your home nation and value what it has on it's own and have pride for your country...

It's obvious that you have not been in the CF for very long.  I was in the CF for 11 years and I felt very "subjugated" by the organization to the point of having to leave.

I felt very much the way you do when I first joined the CF.  I was more than proud and I hated the Americans.  As I grew older and saw things as they really are, I realized that the loyalty I had for Canada and the CF was not reciprocal.

A few points:

1.  A foreign national serving in the US military is not "subjugated" in any way.  Unless you think that having to following rules and regulations is subjugation (the same thing exists in the CF...rules and regulations).  I have personally never felt that way about he the Marine Corps and there are people from all sorts of countries serving in the Marines.  The attitude is simple:  if you're here, you're one of us.  No one treats you as a second class citizen because of the language you speak or where you come from.  That's more than I can say for the CF where if you are a francophone, some units hold it against you.  On the flip side, when serving with Quebec regiments, if you are an anglophone, no one wants anything to do with you.  Being bilingual, I saw both sides of the coin and I can tell you that it hurts and I used to get extremely angry.  I've seen field grade officers speak only in french at conferences trying to force obvious unilingual anglophones to speak a language they don't know and cause them embarrassment just the "bring down the english oppressors".  I can tell you, I had some very animated exchanges with some of those people because what they were doing was just wrong.

2.  Loyalty is a two way street.  For some reason the CF can't figure that out.  In Canada you are treated as a subject (we know what is good for you).  In the US you are treated as a citizen (you have rights).  You will never know how restricted your freedom is in Canada until you live in the US.  If you're own country can't look after you and treat its soldier right, then the foundation of your loyalty begins to erode. (read my post in Quitting the forces and you'll see what I mean.

3.  Canada is economically dominated by the US.  It doesn't matter how you slice it, it's always dollar fourty four day for Americans visiting Canada.  Everyting that happens in the US directly and indirectly affects the Canadian economy.  If we were to shut down the border today and allow no more trade with the US, Canada would slip to the status of a second world nation.

As much as you, others may not want to admit it, Canada needs the US to survive.  If CF soldiers want to migrate south of the border to be with the real thing rather than belonging to a reasonably hand drawn facsimile, then that is up to them.  It doesn't mean they don't feel any loyalty to Canada.  I have far more respect for CF soldiers joining the US military than I do for those candy rear-end college graduates who are interested only in their personal monetary gain.  You won't be a millionaire while serving the US military, I can assure you of that.

My advice to you:  Do ten years in the CF (if you can stand it that long or if you can make ends meat that long) and then come back and tell me where your loyalties lie.

Regards.

PJ D-Dog

 

[pbi]

Canada will always play the role of the "brilliant subordinate" until the day comes that we are fully capable of pursuing a totally independent course in the world. We simply lack the ability (at present) to play that role, and anyway one might want to ask why we would bother, since unilateralism seems to create more problems than it solves, except in extremis when national security is immediately at stake and trumps all other concerns.

Anyway, we are a pretty junior partner in the world, and most definitely the junior partner in North America (I do not include Mexico in this discussion, since AFAIK their role beyond their borders has been next to zero.) Given this fact, we can take one of two courses of action. We can work with the US, as a respected and loyal ally who holds up their end of the load, or we can try to pursue a separate way which will bring with it inevitable friction with the US. While I think that the historical spectre of a US invasion ("Manifest Destiny", etc) is an unlikely one, economic sanctions are not. Note that I am not discussing the "Third Option" because IMHO it is not really relevant to the security issue at hand.

In my opinion, if we do not like the course of US foreign policy, the best way to be able to influence it is from the first position: that of an "insider". If we force ourselves (or, maybe I should say "continue to force ourselves") into the role of the untrustworthy, flip-flopping carper and whiner that wants everything but is willing to contribute nothing, then our attempts to influence their foreign policy, or any other policy that affects us, will be given about as much weight as comments from Holland or Morocco. The US are, in my opinion (and some experience) extremely defensive toward negative comment, even if well intended, that comes from "outsiders". Those who are seen in this role can lose all credibility in the blink of an eye. Anecdotally, look how quickly France and Germany, two allies of long standing, went from the status of friends to that of "surrender monkeys" and "Old Europe".

Unless we want the same treatment, the course of action I recommend is the same one we followed under the British: the "insider".

To bring this back to the thread, I believe that in order to do that, we need a capable military that can contribute to the security of North America in a meaningful, visible way, both on our shores and "at the scene of the fire". I am not in favour of doorstep defence, and neutrality is simply not an option for us.

Cheers.

 

[PJ D-Dog]

Great post PBI...I'll try and look in this week.  I'll be away training the navy....gasp.

D-Dog.

 

[Zipper]

Good post pbi. It amazes me how intelligent some of the Infantry can be. :dontpanic:

PJ - You bring up some very valid points. It is a shame at how our own people, let alone the military establishment treats its own. And yes, the French/English thing seems to simmer on and on.

 

[DanielleAnne]

All I have to say is we live in the greatest country in the world.    and I feel that we need to protect what many other Canadians fought and died to give us. So Hell yeah we need a military.  :threat: but that is just mho.

 

[Devin]

What kind of a question is that? of course we need a military, read about ww1 and 2 and find out what the canadians did in those wars. our armed forces are underfunded, underequiped and undermanned we need more young people in our armed forces, i had many people say to me "what are you going in the army for?,are you retaded?" it is very sicking to see how far downhill our country has gotten since 1945. 60 years of spiraling down, well I for one will keep going up and keep fighting for a better and stronger Canada.

 

[koss78a]

hello all im 27 year old male, i am considering joining full time in the canadian military.
not to sure what area, army, navy or air? not sure yet,
i feel though since im 27, im a bit too old to start in the infantry
but i what i want from you guys , is to help me make my decision

y is the military so good? tell me your thoughts?

 

[Meridian]

Koss, Im gonna be friendly (before everyone jumps all over you) and suggest that you take some time with the search function and read through some existing threads... You are not the first person in your position to ask the question.. IF you still have a specific question, create your own thread, dont hijack another that is unrelated.

I agree with pbi, My greatest issue is that the vast majority of Canadians do not, or don't even care to consider the arguments. Sure they want us to the support the military we have, because to do otherwise would be, well rude. But most of the younger Canadians I talk to about my interests with the military almost invariably tell me we dont need one, that it is a joke, and clearly demonstrate they have no will to explore arguments to the contrary.

 

[koss78a]

then we are all doomed if the next generations are not supporting that
we will be taken by the americans in the next 40 years or so

 

[Meridian]

I should note that Im a Poli Sci Honours student and thus have talked about this with some fairly educated pukes

 

[koss78a]

well if your so educated?
then why do educated people say lets get rid of the military in canada?

what are the reasons, lets here them

 

[Bruce Monkhouse]

Koss,
This is a Moderator warning.

Stop asking these open-ended questions. This is the second[and last] time I have said this to you.
Like I said to you just yesterday,...start reading!!!!

 

[George Wallace]

well if your so educated?
then why do educated people say lets get rid of the military in canada?

what are the reasons, lets here them

For a guy who claims

i am 27 years old, have law and security diploma and business.
as well i have lots of experience working security for last few years
cant decide on what trade to get into, but would like something thats diverse and practical.

I am surprised by the simplicity of your questions.   I would have imagined that by now in your life, many of these questions must have been discussed over beers at a bar or party.   I am sure that in the Security Business there must have been talk over coffee about these matters at some time or other also.  The novelty of your lines of questioning is wearing thin.  You post like a prepubescent teenager, and perhaps are mascarading as something you are not.  Please do more reading of the Forums before flooding us with inane questions.   And please post with good grammar and spelling.  It looks and reads so much better.

 

[TheNomad]

Well I am an outsider here:

1.  The question is a valid one. Firstly I believe Canada needs to decide what it wants it armed forces to do.  I doubt if this will ever really happen based on what I have read about the history of the Canadian Army.

2.  Canada is almost irrelevant as far as military action is concerned.  Note this is not a dig at the troops, but a reflection of the government policies thay are subjected to. CANBAT in UNPROFOR was often referred to as CANTBAT.

3.  Canada is in no position to defend itself from the US.  The US will never need to invade Canada, they will just buy up those bits they do not already own.  Remember in whose favour is NAFTA?

4.  There is no readily identifiable threat to Canada.  Fishing disputes are not likely to lead to Spain attempting to invade.

5.  If Canada cuts its forces much more, then it might as well wind the whole show up and stop pretendig.

6.  Maybe it is time to scrap the CF and just reform the Coastguard into something more like the USCG with a real remit to protect Canada's coast line against illegal fishing and the landing of people and drugs etc.  This would of course meaning having to recognise that Canada has no intention of ever having a real armed forces or going to war again.

7.  Most Canadian civilians I know seriously do not think the Canada should have any military at all.

8.  Personally I would like to see the return of the RCN, CA and RCAF instead of these so called elements. However, I also think there is more chance of the CF being scrapped than that happening.

Like I said these are not digs at the troops, but I seriously doubt that any Canadian government of any party is likely to do much in the way of making the CF viable entities, so maybe it is time for a total re-think.