Canada?s military future

Email Me When A New Comment Is Made
Show Only Poster Name and Title Newest to Oldest

Pages: 1 2 3 NEXT

Lubdub RE:Canada?s military future 7/16/2003 9:35:15 AM

HMM summed up in a couple of words RELY ON THE US FOR DEFENSE !!!!!!!!

Quote Reply

M4A3E2(76)W RE:Lubdub 7/16/2003 10:34:08 AM

1) No military equals no sovereignty, no thanks. 2) The U.S. military is stretched thin, that?s why the U.S. needs allies.

Quote Reply

capitalist72 RE:Canada?s military future 7/16/2003 12:31:00 PM

Canada's military future would depend on what is Canada's vision for itself 20 years hence? Are there any policy papers on this by Canadian policy makers/influencers/think tanks?

Quote Reply

Phoenix Rising RE:Canada?s military future 7/17/2003 2:30:14 AM

I see unlimited potential in genetically modified warrior moose. :-D Seriously, though, I think Canada should probably think more in terms of NATO than in terms of itself, and the rest will follow; any conflict it gets involved in is almost of necessity going to involve the US. In terms of specifics, Canada's defense needs are probably going to center around technology and specialists like snipers and commandos, because they don't have the population to support a massive military establishment. I'm trying to think of a good military purpose for Canada's greatest asset, land, since it's the second-largest country on Earth, but aside from things like flying ranges for fighter jets, I'm drawing a blank. --Phoenix Rising

Quote Reply

Shaka of Carthage RE:Canada?s military future 7/17/2003 5:30:04 PM

I think the Canadian commitment to the UN as peacekeepers is extremely important. I don't like the idea of Canadaian military being those peacekeepers, but I think it should be the nuclueas around which a UN Peacekeeping Legion could be built. The NATO commitment should be gotten out of. NATO served its purpose, any new purpose should be examined on its own merits, not the merits of NATO from years ago. In terms of national defense, the US is always there. Fixing the defense budget at around 2 or 2.5% of GDP should be enough. Canada has the luxury in that if its military is too small, its "protected" by the US. That doesn't mean that Canada shouldn't be able to raise its own forces to protect itself, it should. But when trouble comes, it will have the time to do so, so it doesn't need a large standing military. The extreme amount of borders and ocean would imply a large navy and/or air force. But those are expensive. Someone else needs to work out those needs. Ground force, infantry dominant units would appear to be the most cost effective. Small amount of armor, to reinforce the infantry when needed, would be appropriate. Mobility from APC (tracked or wheeled) would be smart, with the infantry deploying (ie not using the APC as a IFV). Helio's would be nice, but are expensive. So any "air mobile" units are out of the question. But using UAVs at the Brigade or Battalion level would be very smart. I'd get rid of any SP Arty, and would go with CEASAR type arty. Then start doing creative infantry type stuff... like 155mm mortars; 20gauge shotguns under your M16s; basically all the infantry type improvments that are constantly discussed but nobody considers.

Quote Reply

M4A3E2(76)W RE:Shaka 7/17/2003 9:00:45 PM

No, no, no! The UN is a wanabe new world order, socialist government, its evil! Keep a good rifle and some ammo ready for when your country is occupied by the blue hats. NATO, what are non European nations thinking, belonging to the future united European army?

Quote Reply

Shaka of Carthage RE:Shaka 7/18/2003 12:59:58 AM

Different subject, so I won't get to far into it. UN as a world government? Considering the General Assembly is a democracy, and the Security Council is I don't know what, its the farthest thing from being a world government. Its not evil, in fact, its function is necessary in todays world. The problem is that the UN can't enforce its own decisions. Anyway, its not a bad idea, definetly not evil. Like everything thing else, it just needs to be updated... especially the composition of the permanent members of the Security Council.

Quote Reply

M4A3E2(76)W RE:Shaka 7/18/2003 8:43:13 AM

Shaka! The UN is NOT a democracy. The general assembly for the most part is made up of tin pot dictatorships. None of the members of the UN were elected to the positions they hold. The UN wants an international criminal court. This court will not recognize the rights that Americans take for granted. The UN also wants and a world taxation system. ?NO TAXATION WITHOUT REPERSENTATION? "If every person has the right to defend - even by force - his person, his liberty, and his property, then it follows that a group of men have the right to organize and support a common force to protect these rights constantly." All freedom loving Americans should join their local free militia. ?The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots & tyrants? Thomas Jefferson

Quote Reply

Shaka of Carthage RE:Shaka 7/18/2003 3:32:35 PM

My o My. Seems we are a little misinformed. General Assembly is a democracy. One nation, one vote. As long as you are a nation, you are elgible. Dictatorships are not always bad. Different nations, all thoroughout history, have been led by dictators. Its just that they sometimes called themselves Kings or Queens. >The UN wants an international criminal court. This court will not recognize the rights that Americans take for granted.< You do realize, that only a few nations in the world, recognize the "rights" that Americans take for granted. And that wouldn't include the British, Canada, France, etc. When you visit one of those countries, when you break the law, you are prosecuted under thier laws, not the laws of the US. So the UN asking for a international criminal court that doesn't follow US laws isn't such a big deal. The world isn't just America. I haven't followed this issue alot, cause it bores me. But from what I remember, the internationa criminal court would only take over if a nation decided it didn't want to prosecute a foreigner itself. The US is ok with the concept, as long as the "criminals" are given certain rights ... habeus corpus?, innoncent until proven guilty, etc. Something like that. Most other nations operate under a different criminal system. I'm not saying its better or worse, its just different. UN taxation... why not? For a organization to function, especially if its to be effective, it needs money. We have representation in the General Assembly, as well as permanent member status in the Security Council. UN couldn't screw over the money any worse than the Pentagon. >All freedom loving Americans should join their local free militia.< Thats one for a different topic. >?The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots & tyrants? Thomas Jefferson "The tree of liberty should be used to hang greedy politicians". Shaka of Carthage

Quote Reply

M4A3E2(76)W RE:Shaka 7/18/2003 4:41:06 PM

The most important of all legal rights, is the right to be tried by a jury of ones peers, a jury with the power of nullification. In all English common law countries, the citizens have this right. This means that most people here, have this right. For those that don?t, they are entitled to it as sure as the right to life itself. I do not recognize the authority of the UN court over me. And since nobody at the UN has had their name on any ballot that I have cast, I neither recognize the UN?s authority to tax me. Since you think differently from me shaka, I will leave you with this last thought. ?If ye love wealth greater than liberty, the tranquility of servitude greater than the animating contest for freedom, go home from us in peace. We seek not your counsel, nor your arms. Crouch down and lick the hand that feeds you. May your chains set lightly upon you; and may posterity forget that ye were our countrymen.? SAMUEL ADAMS

Quote Reply

1 2 3 NEXT