Jump to content
Political Discussion Forums

Canadian Military or Foreign Aid


the janitor

Recommended Posts

Guest Derek L

No one's poking you in the eye Derek L.

I never said anyone was.

Exactly case in point militarism to advance politics, the example specifically applying to the inheritors of the Prussian Empire of Clausewitz and its ideology.

Yeah, I know, I stated as much.

The allies responded to a direct attack, not your fertile imagination that someone is poking you in the eye.

And what did the Allies respond with William Charon?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 327
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

2nd and third generational warfare. Something we've long since passed by now, but something the war profiteers so desperately want us to think is a reality worthy of pissing billions of dollars down a tube where they will never be seen again or practically used for anything.

Edited by Charon
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Derek L

2nd and third generational warfare. Something we've long since passed by now, but something the war profiteers so desperately want us to think is a reality worthy of pissing billions of dollars down a tube where they will never be seen again or practically used for anything.

So what did the Allies use to respond to German “politics by other means”? Their own nations militaries to retort to said German actions……..Clearly they didn’t send “humanitarian aide” to the Germans to stop their designs on Europe…

And you've claimed “we’ve” past one of the tenements of the human psyche? When did that happen? Do you watch the news at all? It tends to disprove your "dream"... :rolleyes:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

.7% GDP has been the target for foreign development for years. Canada can afford it. .7% would give us a limited military but enough capability to do what we do now basically. I think more money spent on foreign aid would actually buy us more security than what we spend above that on defence (think someone posted about 1.2%). That extra .5% just goes South of the border at some point anyway.

Consider: Canada has built/flown about 1100 fighter jets post-WW2. How many have acutally gone into combat? 48. Never more than 6 or 12 at a time and only for a period of a few months. We'd run out of spares with a deployment any longer than that. So spending a total of upwards 12 billion on fighter jets that never saw combat bought us security? Hardly.

People always lament over the Avro Arrow being cancelled. It was a budget hog and it should have been cancelled. Perhaps sooner than it was. Nice looking plane but not a fighter, nothing more than a mission-specific interceptor for a threat that didn't exist.

I have respect for the people that serve in the military (I did myself) and it should be well-equipped for it's size, but like the Avro Arrow, Canada has all along been spending billions on a threat that doesn't really exist. I think we did make some headway in Afghanistan. Hopefully we did. Because if we didn't, then we really didn't need to be there at all, not for as long as we did anyway. We sure didn't need to spend what we spent to be there.

Keep in mind our security against a terrorist threat involves Coast Guard platforms, the RCMP, and Border Security Services as well as the military (and like it or not, the CF has the secondary role), and I wouldn't starve those department budgets to buy advanced fighter jets just because other countries want us to.

If we really need to spend 1.2% on the CF okay fine. Let's spend that on foreign development too. Much of what is spent on foreign development comes back to Canada anyway.

Edited by the janitor
Link to comment
Share on other sites

So what did the Allies use to respond to German “politics by other means”? Their own nations militaries to retort to said German actions……..Clearly they didn’t send “humanitarian aide” to the Germans to stop their designs on Europe…

And you've claimed “we’ve” past one of the tenements of the human psyche? When did that happen? Do you watch the news at all? It tends to disprove your "dream"... :rolleyes:

Totally different situation now. We aren't up against Nazi Germany. Even if we had all the material at the ready to defeat such an enemy we couldn't. We are in a different society. The West has no stomach for total warfare, even though it's the only warfare that's winable. Look at Vietnam...won every battle and still lost the whole dang thing.

If we were up against something like Nazi Germany I'd support as big a military budget as economically possible. That's what it took to win. But we aren't, and an extra .5% GDP on defence isn't buying us any extra security. It really isn't.

Edited by the janitor
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Derek L

Totally different situation now. We aren't up against Nazi Germany. Even if we had all the material at the ready to defeat such an enemy we couldn't. We are in a different society. The West has no stomach for total warfare, even though it's the only warfare that's winable. Look at Vietnam...won every battle and still lost the whole dang thing.

If we were up against something like Nazi Germany I'd support as big a military budget as economically possible. That's what it took to win. But we aren't, and an extra .5% GDP on defence isn't buying us any extra security. It really isn't.

And Great Britain & the Commonwealth, France and the United States etc weren’t up against Nazi Germany in late April of 1933 either………

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Derek L

Derek you either didn't read my response, or you didn't understand it.

You are making an anachronistic syllogism.

Oh, I understood it as your illustration of your (lack there of) understanding of the world……….Doesn’t make it so unfortunately.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Derek L

How can you accuse me of not understanding the world when you can't understand a simple paragraph?

I understood it, but your views are contrary to reality as it is in the world today.

Sorry William Charon :(

Link to comment
Share on other sites

And Great Britain & the Commonwealth, France and the United States etc weren’t up against Nazi Germany in late April of 1933 either………

It's no longer 1933. The threat is completely different and the response must be also. Besides, I'm not saying completely do away with the CF, but we'd have a problem say with fighting the Battle of the Atlantic again for instance. Despite everything spent on defence we haven't had decent maritime helicopters for a couple of decades. Despite what we spend the government still can't manage to get the equipment th CF needs. Think I'd rather not commit them to combat again any time soon.

Edited by the janitor
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Derek L

You mean reality like your belief that China is menacingly poised to attack Canada?

Pass your Scotch I could use a heavy dose of Sinophobia to make any sense of your paranoia.

Well Churchill was certainly called a gin drinking drunk when he rallied against the Nazi menace in the mid 1930s……Well it certainly doesn’t take gumption and forethought to have ones head buried in the sand……..Fortunately, those in power share similar thoughts as I.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yeah you're really Winston Churchill snicker. Those pink elephants and Hitlerite Chinese are really neat.

But yeah you definitely have the prophetic but just misunderstood foresight to see China's great plans to attack Canada just like Churchill did to Nazi Germany.

Delusions great after a couple Scotches isn't it?

Edited by Charon
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Derek L

It's no longer 1933. The threat is completely different and the response must be also. Besides, I'm not saying completely do away with the CF, but we'd have a problem say with fighting the Battle of the Atlantic again for instance. Despite everything spent on defence we haven't had decent maritime helicopters for a couple of decades. Despite what we spend the government still can't manage to get the equipment th CF needs. Think I'd rather not commit them to combat again any time soon.

I haven’t suggested we should fight the battle of the Atlantic again, even though I spent a good portion of my life preparing to do exactly that………..Be that as it may, the rapid expansion of the Chinese blue-water fleet suggests we should look to be preparing to fight the Battle of the Pacific as a possible future scenario.
Hence the bipartisan Pacific pivot of the United States, coupled with the rapid expansion of our regional allies in response to the Chinese expansion and inclusions of a maritime expeditionary doctrine as a feather in the cap of Chinese foreign policy.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Derek L:

"As you just quoted that 1735 bil was spent on militaries around the world....even the US does not spend more than half of that. "

Actually the US does spend more than half of that. If you add the cost of its current wars, its black budget, its military budget etc. It well exceeds that.

Your moving the goal posts again, if that was the case you would also have to include all of the other nations BLACK Budgets, its current wars etc...which would drive your 1735 well past the 2000 mark would it not.....lets not forget those numbers that china have provided are just for the media, and are much higher.

You folks are stuck in the militaristic mentality of the 1st half of the 20th century. We all saw what that led to, worldwide militaristic lunacy and the deaths of millions heaped upon millions.

The days of global third generational warfare are over. Its the 21st century now. Millions of people can be saved from starvation and death simply by helping them rather than hoarding weapons to benefit war profiteers and being paranoid about each other.

That lunacy is still going on read the source i provided on conflicts around the world today, then tell me again that the world has changed enough not to have another world war.....It is our very nature to pick up a stick and beat someone when we don't get our way....we been doing it since we appear on this planet and we will continue to do it until we all perish....

Having a ready and modern military is an insurance policy that others don't take what they want....it is also one of many tools to ensure we can support our foreign policy. Like it or not militaries are here to stay....and having one costs billions to maintain.

Your idea of saving all those souls from starving is admirable, but as history clearly states over and over , you want to save those poor souls you need lots of funding for aid and a huge military stick to ensure it gets to the people that need it.... and to do that you need people on the ground. people with guns and stuff....Sending in huge amounts of aid does what exactly....can you name a project our nation has completed with just foreign aid and it has had better results than sending in Combat troops. I mean your the one trying to sell this idea of yours prove it works give us some samples...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

.7% GDP has been the target for foreign development for years. Canada can afford it. .7% would give us a limited military but enough capability to do what we do now basically. I think more money spent on foreign aid would actually buy us more security than what we spend above that on defence (think someone posted about 1.2%). That extra .5% just goes South of the border at some point anyway.

How can it afford it, in the current day deficit. that 1.2 % is falling daily as they hit up our military for cuts. Like i said before show us some samples were our foreign aid has provided positive results which provided more secuity than our military operations have.

Our curent military is not equiped properly to it's peace time TO&E, its well below that mark...knowing that there is just over 15,000 reg force soldiers protecting this great nation must comfort you.

Consider: Canada has built/flown about 1100 fighter jets post-WW2. How many have acutally gone into combat? 48. Never more than 6 or 12 at a time and only for a period of a few months. We'd run out of spares with a deployment any longer than that. So spending a total of upwards 12 billion on fighter jets that never saw combat bought us security? Hardly.

You pay insurance for you car, your home, maybe your life, ever need them ? If not why do you pay it to them......have they ever payed out more than what you have paid in to them ? would you risk not having them ? Modern equipment takes years to produce , and you can not rent it in large numbers, so IF anything happens where do you get it ? how do you train on it....

I have respect for the people that serve in the military (I did myself) and it should be well-equipped for it's size, but like the Avro Arrow, Canada has all along been spending billions on a threat that doesn't really exist.

Attacks on the main land is not the main threat, as we are lucky US to the south, and where we are situated in the world....the problem is getting drug into a conflict not on our shores but else where...what then...do our military not require the same level of protection.

Keep in mind our security against a terrorist threat involves Coast Guard platforms, the RCMP, and Border Security Services as well as the military (and like it or not, the CF has the secondary role), and I wouldn't starve those department budgets to buy advanced fighter jets just because other countries want us to.

No other dept has the equipment or training to respond to any threat, which includes other fishing ves....as those depts have already been starved and can not afford to purchase any of the equipment needed, hence why RCMP, Coast Guard, Border security, all depend on naval , air , and ground equipment from the military....

If we really need to spend 1.2% on the CF okay fine. Let's spend that on foreign development too. Much of what is spent on foreign development comes back to Canada anyway.

How much comes to back to canada , plse provide a source...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Your moving the goal posts again, if that was the case you would also have to include all of the other nations BLACK Budgets, its current wars etc...which would drive your 1735 well past the 2000 mark would it not.....lets not forget those numbers that china have provided are just for the media, and are much higher.

So you're suggests that the cost of the military worldwide is even higher than that absurd cost. OK I certainly won't argue with THAT.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I haven’t suggested we should fight the battle of the Atlantic again, even though I spent a good portion of my life preparing to do exactly that………..Be that as it may, the rapid expansion of the Chinese blue-water fleet suggests we should look to be preparing to fight the Battle of the Pacific as a possible future scenario.

That's the problem I have with the military mentality. By its nature it must dream up and prepare for paranoid scenarios. This process continues until someone takes the scenarios seriously and they become a self-fulfilling prophecy.

Ike Eisenhauer warned of the dangers of the Military Industrial Complex less than 20 years after World War 2, a frightening and stark warning of something that has plagued humanity ever since and ensured that the people who were starving starved by the millions and the war profiteers were fed like plump cannibals.

"Every gun that is made, every warship launched, every rocket fired, signifies in the final sense a theft from those who hunger and are not fed, those who are cold and are not clothed."

President Eisenhower

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Derek L

History teaches that wars begin when governments believe the price of aggression is cheap. To keep the peace, we and our allies must be strong enough to convince any potential aggressor that war could bring no benefit, only disaster. So, when we neglected our defenses, the risks of serious confrontation grew.

- Ronald Reagan

And

"It is war that shapes peace, and armament that shapes war."

"It is war that shapes peace, and armament that shapes war." - Thomas Fuller

Simply put, weakness invites aggression........It's in our nature.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Simply put, weakness invites aggression........It's in our nature.

Perhaps, but strength need not come from military spending.

For Canada, our strongest asset is our close relationship with the USA. I would argue that whether we spend 0.7 or 4 % of our GDP will make no difference in our security. Excessive military spending can also diminish economic and ideological power.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Derek L

Perhaps, but strength need not come from military spending.

For Canada, our strongest asset is our close relationship with the USA. I would argue that whether we spend 0.7 or 4 % of our GDP will make no difference in our security. Excessive military spending can also diminish economic and ideological power.

It most certainly is, and you could add three oceans on the other sides, yet at what point do we fully allow the United States to defend our sovereignty and foreign interests? Also, is it not reasonable for the United States to expect a worthwhile Canadian contribution to the “shared” defence umbrella? Their expectations of a Canadian contribution aren’t that high.
As such, and combined with both Canadian fiscal and political realities, we should contribute a professional military that can both meet Canadian interests at home and abroad well also making a viable (and invaluable) contribution to (likely) US led, coalition warfare. In a great many areas we are already there or have signalled that we will be there in the near future, but in some areas, we have been and currently are a burden and our contribution is solely geopolitical.
Does this mean we need to drastically increase our defence budget? Not at all, but we have to realize greater efficiencies and reprioritize our focus in some areas. It would also be helpful if the elected Government, of any strip, realized that the Department of National Defence (and it’s stated needs) shouldn’t be looked at as a regional job creation program nor one of the largest agencies in Government to hold vast amounts of Real Estate and solely political infrastructure………This becomes a political mater, but there it is.
As to political realities, we must revisit the past and examine what areas we have done well and not so well, well also combining this with what we can afford and what the Canadian public and our political actors will tolerate and support……Though not morally right, it is reality. For example, are Canadians more likely to support a sustained ground mission similar to Afghanistan in the near future? What about a primarily RCAF-centric generated mission like our contribution to the enforcement of the no-fly zone over Libya? Or the RCN’s (quite) contribution to combating piracy off the Horn of Africa?
You answer these above questions, take into account our natural geography and friendly neighbour to the South and take a Longview look at what future conflicts we could become embroiled, and that is the direction we should focus our limited fiscal and political capital.
Edited by Derek L
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Again who are we defending ourselves against? We have no enemies. China is not a real threat to Canada, at best its a threat to Taiwan, and Taiwan isn't Canada.

Why don't we do something sensible with our resources like paying down the debt so we don't have to borrow money from China etc just to keep our economy alive. Or how about not selling off our resources to foreign countries? That seems like a lot more sensible way to defend our interests than spending billions upon billions of dollars on threats that don't really exist.

Trying to conquer Africa and Central Asia doesn't seem all that intelligent given the history of it. And even if policing Africa (yet not helping them from starving to death in the millions with the resources we spend on military domination) and Central Asia is the goal, the last thing we need are F35s to do it.

Edited by Charon
Link to comment
Share on other sites

It most certainly is, and you could add three oceans on the other sides, yet at what point do we fully allow the United States to defend our sovereignty and foreign interests? Also, is it not reasonable for the United States to expect a worthwhile Canadian contribution to the “shared” defence umbrella? Their expectations of a Canadian contribution aren’t that high.
As such, and combined with both Canadian fiscal and political realities, we should contribute a professional military that can both meet Canadian interests at home and abroad well also making a viable (and invaluable) contribution to (likely) US led, coalition warfare. In a great many areas we are already there or have signalled that we will be there in the near future, but in some areas, we have been and currently are a burden and our contribution is solely geopolitical.
Does this mean we need to drastically increase our defence budget? Not at all, but we have to realize greater efficiencies and reprioritize our focus in some areas. It would also be helpful if the elected Government, of any strip, realized that the Department of National Defence (and it’s stated needs) shouldn’t be looked at as a regional job creation program nor one of the largest agencies in Government to hold vast amounts of Real Estate and solely political infrastructure………This becomes a political mater, but there it is.
As to political realities, we must revisit the past and examine what areas we have done well and not so well, well also combining this with what we can afford and what the Canadian public and our political actors will tolerate and support……Though not morally right, it is reality. For example, are Canadians more likely to support a sustained ground mission similar to Afghanistan in the near future? What about a primarily RCAF-centric generated mission like our contribution to the enforcement of the no-fly zone over Libya? Or the RCN’s (quite) contribution to combating piracy off the Horn of Africa?
You answer these above questions, take into account our natural geography and friendly neighbour to the South and take a Longview look at what future conflicts we could become embroiled, and that is the direction we should focus our limited fiscal and political capital.

Yes I agree a professional Canadian military is needed - but the point I was making was that our security depends on our relationship with the USA - and extra 10 icebreakers, 25 airplanes and 10 helicopters has absolutely no impact on our security nor does it change the fact that, if we ever faced a real enemy we would be dependant on the USA to defend us. (a very big IF, perhaps even negligible as Charon suggests)

I also agree that we should be ready to assist in coalition warfare. This supports my point about making the Canadian military more specialized by avoiding duplication of capabilities within NATO countries. Perhaps Canada would take a stronger role in military/police training.

Yes, revisit the past, but do not limit this to military matters. Perhaps Canada's best contributions could come in the diplomatic sphere - to help avoid/shorten future conflicts. Canada is well positioned to act as a bridge between the US and other ideologies - this work would be much more valuable to the US than some military hardware. One example is the freeing of the Iran hostages.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Again who are we defending ourselves against? We have no enemies. China is not a real threat to Canada, at best its a threat to Taiwan, and Taiwan isn't Canada.

You still don't get it, Canada has signed defensive pacts with dozens of nations, each of whom do have real threats, if one of them are threatened we will be dragged inot that conflict, prepared or not....The US decided China was a threat to her and her interests, therefore she is a threat to us....Taiwan is under US protection, and if a conflict brews there we will be drug into it....

Why don't we do something sensible with our resources like paying down the debt so we don't have to borrow money from China etc just to keep our economy alive. Or how about not selling off our resources to foreign countries? That seems like a lot more sensible way to defend our interests than spending billions upon billions of dollars on threats that don't really exist.

1.2 % of our GDP goes to spending on our military, the other 98.8 % is not under review WHY ? because the military is always a linberal target....and yet billions are spent on other stupid shit....the military has been targeted long enoungh....time to paint another target....

Trying to conquer Africa and Central Asia doesn't seem all that intelligent given the history of it. And even if policing Africa (yet not helping them from starving to death in the millions with the resources we spend on military domination) and Central Asia is the goal, the last thing we need are F35s to do it.

Why don't we leave the equiping of our military to the experts, and have the arm chair critics sit this one out....And while we are concerned with feeding the starving a noble cause that it is , our own military could not defend downtown toronto on a good day, and yet nobody is concerned with that....Screw it the US will protect us as they have always done.....well it's time to move out and stop sucking off the US tit...grow up as a nation take responsability for our own problems....Maybe the US president should show us some tough love....and demand us to pay our share, which is alot more than 1.2 %....

To many Canadians love the free ride, and yet have failed to do anything postive with the funding they do NOT spend on defense.....i mean with our plentiful, resources what have we done ....have we sent enough to make a deference in say Somolia, or any other starving nation ....where images of millions of women and children were shown on the media every night ...what did we do as a nation, we changed the f***ing channel is what we did ..Nations that are starving need more than foreign aid, they need someone with a stick to make sure food gets to the people....send all the aid you want and all you will acomplish is line the pockets of those that are starving their own people....

Why are we even talking about feeding the starving masses anyways, when that funding could and should be spent on our own problems here in our own nation.....No that does not even get a mentioned....WE want to feed the millions....and we want to do that with our military spending because the color green and big mean rough men scare me, make me ill....Thats the real problem....

Heres an idea, cut off funding to unemployment, and welfare here in our nation, use those bils to feed the starving and employ them to hand out all this foreign aid.....Or why not cut of all the bils spent on first nations, and finally make them one of us, equal, instead of the conquored race we treat them as ....lets not get into to that this topic is military spending....

One that you have intrenched your ideas and beliefs into thinking it is all a waste.....nothing is going to change your mind....nothing is going to change mine, i've been to most of the worlds shit holes, seen with miy own eyes what not being prepared can do, how dangerous liberal minded thinking is....I've also seen what evil men are capable of if they are left alone to do what they want....we as a human race are not yet ready for a world without war....we will always pick on the weak and take what we want....ALWAYS....

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.




  • Tell a friend

    Love Political Discussion Forums? Tell a friend!
×
×
  • Create New...