Canada gives up on their military. I wonder who they're depending on now?

[BytopianDream]

@msklystron

Don’t forget that our tax base is much smaller than yours. More people live in NY State than in all of Canada. We have a large land mass to defend with fewer dollars and a smaller pool of soldiers.

Finally, to answer your question, if the U.S. soil was under attack, we’d be at your side. I hope the same would be true in reverse. We also have other friends, like the entire Commonwealth, who would run to our defence if need be.

First off, if you’d send more of those hot Canadian babes down here, we could get you guys a bigger population real quick. I mean come on, we don’t even know how to spell con… (i before q, except after z, in a invading way… pass the t, carry the 9) conundrums.

Secondly, ya damn skippy. If Canada ever got invaded, I’d hop in my Hummer12, the 10 ton, 2 miles per gallon (which is like 5 million millimeters per decigram or whatever), grab my 500 RPGs that Gramps hides in his bombshelter (along with all those cigarettes he runs across the border) and starts whomping the interlopers for fucking with my best damn friend country ever.

I mean hell, even the Mexicans would get pissed off, ride up in their low rider, throwing cabbage bombs at the damn Uzbekstanians. And, then they’d sneak across their borders and give them some Montazuma’s revenge on their asses.

As much as we kid, argue or talk shit to each other. YOU DO NOT FUCK WITH CANADA!!! I can fuck with Canada. YOU CANNOT FUCK WITH CANADA!!!

Hell, I’m ready to jump in my Hummer, drive to Spain (isn’t that south of Tiajuana?) and shaving the damn Spaniards mustaches off just because they messed with one of your hockey teams (what kind of name is Ocean’s Cod Fish anyway?).

Ya damn hockey playing, beer drinking, “eh!” saying, poissonieres.

[Yes, this is all in good fun. Someday, probably not in my lifetime or anytime soon, Canada, Mexico and Us will be one giant country. I think it is our destiny. I pretty much look at Canadians and Mexicans as “My people.” I’m wierd though.]

[msklystron]

@ElvisL1ves

Isn’t it clear? That you carry your share of the load internationally. That you devote about as much resources and manpower per capita as the rest of the industrial democracies. What real threat is there to Britain’s borders, or Italy’s, or Australia’s? None, yet when the world community has to act as policemen, they carry their share of the burden. The only one that doesn’t is Canada.

Oh my. Sure we should spend more on our military…

I’m going to preface my comments by saying that I have nothing but respect for the men and women in both the U.S. and Canadian military. But I might well ask how America intends to pay for the American and Iraqi lives lost attacking a country with a population of 50% children to ferret out WMDs that have yet to materialize. Don’t answer. Answers will be forthcoming (or not) in inquiries in your country and in Britain.

Why has the U.S. administration refused to join the move to ban the use of land mines? The gift of war that keeps on maiming and killing, mainly children, in peacetime. The cost of this is staggering, for those without intact limbs.

Oh and has any one seen Mr. B. Laden lately?

Your foreign policy has been all over the map. A mix of fighting for just cause and fighting for – what? Military actions to remove this dictator or that potentate, seemingly at random and yet on closer inspection the pragmatism becomes obvious. And the cost? Let just say it’s higher that the cost of Imelda Marcos’ shoe collection.

End of rant.

[msklystron]

@BytopianDream

First off, if you’d send more of those hot Canadian babes down here, we could get you guys a bigger population real quick…Ya damn hockey playing, beer drinking, “eh!” saying, poissonieres…I think it is our destiny. I pretty much look at Canadians and Mexicans as “My people.” I’m wierd though.]

Oh you wanted babes? We thought you wanted comedians. Dang.

“It is wit da umble ockey stick dat we Canucks will defend you American bastards, eh?”, said Prime Minister Jean Poutine in a recent interview.

Actually most of up here think we can get out of trouble in one of two ways: by apologizing profusely or by challenging the enemy to a game of hockey and a night of beer swilling. (Real Canadian beer with real alcohol; oh, and we’d ask the enemy to turn their backs before the game while we plant a lucky loonie at centre ice.)

Canadians, Americans, Mexicans are one people. We are North Americans, united in common misery for two out of three of us by NAFTA.

[Sofa_King]

Sheeit. Canada gave the world Rush and nowadays every good kind of dope that hits town is called “BC.” You gave us John Byner and hats made so well that elephants can eat 'em and poop 'em right back out unscathed.

America’s got your back, Canada. We love you, and we owe you.

[Declan]

@Grey

Ok, how about this? Someone make a list of possible military threats to Canada that a 10,000 man army, 50 F-18 Super Hornets (we don’t actually have those but we could upgrade) and a 12 ASW frigate navy could deal with.

National sovereignty is another issue, but lets deal with the easy list.

Well my take on that would be to insert a group of Al Q death commandos into Canadian territory ,and have them make their way over land , being billeted and fed by sympathetic immigrants, to the US , where they cause some sort of mischief with lots of casualties.

To be clear , not one Canadian has died as a result of this , only Americans ,and the aforementioned Al Q folks.

What happens ,then is that America is justifyably pissed cause we litterally missed the boat that landed those folks.

A full up military (by the way , this is not really aimed at you , i am just using your post) gives us leverage in how we police our own country. Should something of the scenario mentioned above happen, pretty much congress would be under siege to do something.

A credible military force relieves any american doubts about its northern frontier ,and no one in the pentagon is really planning for a northern command.
You really do get what you pay for.

Declan

[spudbucket]

@coffeecam

If you think that the swiss have no military then you are high.

Please point out where I said this

@coffeecam

While Costa Rica has no standing army, they do have a National Guard

that is what I said in my post, but it is not a military per se. Look at what the CIA fact book says (see my previous link)

@coffeecam

AND not having a military does impact your relations with the United States, among others. Anecdote An International Relations prof. of mine (ex State Dept.) once mentioned that every year Canada sends an envoy to the US, and complains about acid rain from the Rust Belt effecting Canadian forests. And every year the US points out that we’re the ones with the nuclear weapons.

!!! I don’t even know how to respond to this. Now Canada need nukes to be taken seriously…that sounds like a stable international enviornment. There are plenty of other reasons while the US blows off Canada’s acid rain concerns that have nothing to do with Canada’s military
Now, I’m sure it’s not as blatant as that, but if you feel that Canada is being taken for granted now, imagine what it will be like 10 years from now when the military you do have (and it’s apparently in bad shape now) is even worse.

C
[/QUOTE]

[spudbucket]

@Declan

Well my take on that would be to insert a group of Al Q death commandos into Canadian territory ,and have them make their way over land , being billeted and fed by sympathetic immigrants, to the US , where they cause some sort of mischief with lots of casualties.
[snip]

A full up military (by the way , this is not really aimed at you , i am just using your post) gives us leverage in how we police our own country. Should something of the scenario mentioned above happen, pretty much congress would be under siege to do something.

A credible military force relieves any american doubts about its northern frontier ,and no one in the pentagon is really planning for a northern command.
You really do get what you pay for.

Declan

So how does a beefed up military stop this threat? “Inserting” Al queda commandos in Canada is most likely done by having them arrive by commercial airliner or perhaps if they are feeling more sneaky cargo ship. They are not going to be landing on the beach like D-day. (OK. Maybe they could come in at night on a beach in small boat but if so they might as well do so in the US and skip Canada).

I just don’t see how a large military force (vs. border patrols and internal policing stops Al Queda terrorists). It is not like they are massing with tanks and artilliary…

[mske]

@Uzi

EG. Kim Jong fires a missle at Seattle (why? Because he is crazy is why). Yet the thing doesn’t quite make it and it lands on Vancouver. What are you going to do? It might be an unlikely example, but it doesn’t mean that it couldn’t happen.

This is stupid. Even if our military was 5 million troops strong, what could they do in this situation? Try and catch the missile?

Or instead you want to go unleash a can of whoopass on North Korea? Why send troops? Just buy a bunch of missiles from the U.S. and lob them back? Full scale invasion? Not even the U.S. does that (right away).

And it is funny that a lot of Americans are insisting that we bulk up our armed forces so we can better throw our weight around on the world stage and “defend our sovereignty”. Us defending our sovereignty might not be in the U.S’s interests in the long run.

@Declan

Well my take on that would be to insert a group of Al Q death commandos into Canadian territory ,and have them make their way over land , being billeted and fed by sympathetic immigrants, to the US , where they cause some sort of mischief with lots of casualties.

Ummm. Yeah… Talk to Immigration or the CCRA about this one.

[Airman_Doors_USAF]

@mske

And it is funny that a lot of Americans are insisting that we bulk up our armed forces so we can better throw our weight around on the world stage and “defend our sovereignty”. Us defending our sovereignty might not be in the U.S’s interests in the long run.

[ul][li]Nobody is suggesting that you “throw your weight around on the world stage”. Fulfilling your treaty obligations will be quite enough for a start. Funny how it looks like your government has underfunded you guys to the point where you probably won’t be able to do that.[/li][li]Canada defending its own sovereignty is very much in the US interests because it makes anything happening in North America less likely.[/ul][/li]
Great, I’ve taken to repeating myself because you guys never acknowledge the essential truths in what I’m saying and instead focus on irrelevancies, like “Oh, maybe they really don’t want us to defend our own country”, trying to justify once again why you shouldn’t spend some of your money in your own defense and to fulfill your obligations.

[Uzi]

@mske

This is stupid. Even if our military was 5 million troops strong, what could they do in this situation? Try and catch the missile?

Or instead you want to go unleash a can of whoopass on North Korea? Why send troops? Just buy a bunch of missiles from the U.S. and lob them back? Full scale invasion? Not even the U.S. does that (right away).

Yes, I’d like to unleash a can of whoopass on North Korea if they blew up Vancouver. Major fucking Whoopass! Kind of hard to do if you have no military, or a basis from which to build one, don’t you think? :rolleyes:

[spudbucket]

@Airman Doors

[ul][li]Nobody is suggesting that you “throw your weight around on the world stage”. Fulfilling your treaty obligations will be quite enough for a start. Funny how it looks like your government has underfunded you guys to the point where you probably won’t be able to do that.[/li]

How has Canada not fulfilled its treaty obligations? The original article you cite quotes military officials saying that they won’t be able to fulfill its treaty obligations unless the funding comes through. Nothing that I see that says that Canada has not done its part

@Airman Doors

[li]Canada defending its own sovereignty is very much in the US interests because it makes anything happening in North America less likely.[/ul][/li]

What is the threat to Canada’s sovereignty that would be solved by beefing up the military?

@Airman Doors

Great, I’ve taken to repeating myself because you guys never acknowledge the essential truths in what I’m saying and instead focus on irrelevancies, like “Oh, maybe they really don’t want us to defend our own country”, trying to justify once again why you shouldn’t spend some of your money in your own defense and to fulfill your obligations.

I don’t get this. What “essential truth”?

(1) That Canada requires some sort of border patrol/coast guard/military to control its borders? OK. Acknowledged. And that is what Canada has.

or

(2) Canada needs to spent the same amount on its military that the US does (per capita)? Well. I disagree. The aims and aspirations of Canada are different than the US. There is no reason that Canada has to conform to the same military stance that the US does.

[Airman_Doors_USAF]

@spudbucket

How has Canada not fulfilled its treaty obligations? The original article you cite quotes military officials saying that they won’t be able to fulfill its treaty obligations unless the funding comes through. Nothing that I see that says that Canada has not done its part

The funding in the article speaks of so much neglect that if you started funding now to appropriate levels just to preserve what you have you’d be done. You cannot just neglect an army and expect it to be there for you. (See, repeating myself again).

What is the threat to Canada’s sovereignty that would be solved by beefing up the military?

I never said anything about “beefing up” the military. How about just making it a viable force to start? And again repeating myself, you cannot just neglect an army and expect it to be there for you.

(Repeating myself again) You aren’t really under the delusion that North America will never be invaded, are you? It’s inevitable. And what will you do with no defense? Again, it’s a long-term issue with no short- term fix except to ask for help when you’re screwed.

I don’t get this. What “essential truth”?

Your unwillingness to fund your military to even functional levels results in you being defenseless, thus making an attack more likely to happen. And then someone will have to save you. What then? Hmmm, I wonder…

Canada needs to spent the same amount on its military that the US does (per capita)? Well. I disagree. The aims and aspirations of Canada are different than the US. There is no reason that Canada has to conform to the same military stance that the US does.

I never said that. But you are obligated to be able to defend your own country. And from what I’m reading that’s simply not possible. And that’s a serious abrogation of responsibility on the behalf of the government of Canada. Period.

[Hentor_the_Barbarian]

Canada gave the world Rush …

America’s got your back, Canada. We love you, and we owe you.

Absolutely, Sofa King! Amen to that, brother! And by extension the whole concept of the power rock trio.

Additionally, without ice hockey, there’d be no sports in Columbus, OH now would there?

The solution is simple: Canada, take the hundreds of guys you have conducting the changing of the guard there in Ottawa everyday and plug them into real defense roles. Problem solved!

Seriously, why are we picking on Canada here? There’s been no mention of Mexico’s Armed Forces. Nor of the fact that we were happy to spend well over $86 billion dollars to defend the Iraqi people from their own leader, in addition to happily spending to defend our beloved allies in Kuwait. We imply defense of Taiwan from far more grave and gathering threats than Canada faces every day. South Korea has a larger population than Canada and a far greater imminent threat, but we’re not bitching about having to defend them. Would we defend Germany if they were invaded? But they spend roughly the same per capita on defense as Canada does.

Why the beef with Canada?

[spudbucket]

@Airman Doors

You cannot just neglect an army and expect it to be there for you. (See, repeating myself again).

OK. But the issue is what is “neglecting the army”. You didn’t say “beefing up the army” but you talk about “a viable force”. What is the criteria for a viable force? That it can patrol its borders? That it can perform military operations far afield? That it meets treaty obligations? That it can toppel third world governments? That it can defend itself from crediable threats of invasion? The definition of “viable” turns exactly on these points.

I would agree that a low level of military activity would make it more difficult (but not impossible) to expand a military if the Canadian government decided to do.

@Airman Doors

(Repeating myself again) You aren’t really under the delusion that North America will never be invaded, are you? It’s inevitable. And what will you do with no defense? Again, it’s a long-term issue with no short- term fix except to ask for help when you’re screwed.

Never is a long time so no…but will it be invaded by a large-scale military force in the next 35 years? I think unlikely. There is no reason to think that Canada could not expand its military in order to meet any credible threat that emerges.

@Airman Doors

Your unwillingness to fund your military to even functional levels results in you being defenseless, thus making an attack more likely to happen. And then someone will have to save you. What then? Hmmm, I wonder…
[snip] you are obligated to be able to defend your own country. And from what I’m reading that’s simply not possible. And that’s a serious abrogation of responsibility on the behalf of the government of Canada. Period.

Puh-lease…“functional levels”, “defenseless”. Canada can defend itself from all crediable military attack in the near term. In the medium term, Canada has the time to expand its military to face an emerging threat. In the long term, we’re all dead.

[smiling_bandit]

WASHINGTON - Federal Reserve Chairman Alan Greenspan urged Congress on Wednesday to deal with the country’s escalating budget deficit by cutting benefits for future Social Security retirees. Without action, he warned, long-term interest rates would rise, seriously harming the economy.In testimony before the House Budget Committee, Greenspan said the current deficit situation, with a projected record red ink of $521 billion this year, will worsen dramatically once the baby boom generation starts becoming eligible for Social Security benefits in just four years.

Eh, we got saddled with bad specnding decisions made 670 years ago, which are protected by some very powerful interests. Namely, old people.

There is also the example of WW II where Canada joined the fight almost from the very begining when their ties to the Commonwealth demanded it. The US didn’t get involved until they were attacked.

Oh, not this old saw again. You know what: “fuck you”.

2. How far are we lagging behind compared to other “industrial democracies” - especially aside from the U.S.?

It’s really, really bad.

Hey here’s a big Fuck you to that! That Massacre in Rowanda was almost prevented Under a Peacekeeping force lead by Canadians. Dallier’s plan would have worked had the United States not dragged its heals Delayed resolutions in the UN and prevented any further build up from occuring. So while the US shuffled and looked away millions died.

Yes, if not for those evil Americans…

a) Our men/women are amazingly well trained. Amazingly well. We’ve got the world’s best snipers, and some of the bravest air force in the world (I wouldn’t get in a damned sea-king.)

You are well trained. You are not the best. Don’t get cocky about it. I’d rate our armed forces, the British, and the Swiss at least above yours. And probably the Poles (sounds odd, but the Poles are really good). But yes, you are among the top 10, and at that level it’s about the same.

The US military establishment (historically speaking) has probably never wanted a militarily strong Canada. In the “What if” scenarios they play, an invasion from Canada must always be considered. In the What If scenario, Canadanians might suddenly go right-wing, become a dicatorship and before you know it their version of the Weremacht is roaring across the border.

That won’t happen. First, Canada simply doesn’t have the ability to create a war machine to threaten us. The Wehrmacht only worked against RUssia because the Russian Army was incompetant and leaderless, and lagged significantly in tactics and technology. Also, I find it more likely that Canada will dissolve into civil war than try to conquer the US.

Of course, any attempt to conquer the US would be doomed to failure. We’d have more partisans than your entire population. And if we were invaded by you, we’d probably wip out every Canadian loyal to that government.

Seriously, why are we picking on Canada here? There’s been no mention of Mexico’s Armed Forces.

Mexico does not have any similar obligations. Also, they couldn’t make a first-rate armed force if they tried. They simply don’t have the money.

Would we defend Germany if they were invaded? But they spend roughly the same per capita on defense as Canada does.

Sadly, both Germany and Canada spend their money poorly. Lets not beat around the bush here: you aren’t getting enough bang for your buck. You’re not nearly as bad as Germany in this, though.

[Frank]

Airman, I’m not sure you’re really paying any attention to anything anyone’s saying here except to pick out the quotes.

The statement that Canada will not be able to meet its treaty obligations comes from a person (persons) with a vested interest in getting more money. I’m not going to take that as gospel without verification. Apparently, even by Canadian standards, let alone U.S., the military is underrfunded. Isn’t that up to them? Isn’t the debate (and decision) an internal issue to Canada? Are you pleased when people from other countries criticize the U.S. decisions on funding and use of our military?

What are we protecting Canada from? Historically, danger comes from a country’s neighbors. You could arm every man, woman and child in Canada, devote the entire budget for the next ten years on training them and still they wouldn’t last one month if we chose to invade. There has to be a realistic level of military spending based on threats, on needs, and on desires. Quite frankly, it’s none of our business what Canada decides suits them, as long as they are able to meet whatever obligations they have. There is no evidence they cannot.

When North America is invaded? In 50 or 100 years? There is NO way to assess what the threats will be then, or what the geopolitical status will be then. If you had been running around in 1904 or 1954 warning of terrorists flying airplanes into buildings, you would quickly have developed a reputation as a crank. I would hope that as the situation changes, and new threats develop, clear eyes and clear minds would recognize that, and respond as appropriate. For right now, though, I think your concerns are misplaced.

[Grey]

quote=Uzi] What are you talking about? If Canada as a nation was gone it we would probably be part of the US and that would mean 30 million more taxpayers to pay for that protection. Right now we aren’t paying anything.
[/quote]
Listen folks, when I mean Canada is gone I mean the damn place is under 200 ft of Artic Ice. Chicago and Buffalo suddenly have ocean front property.

Declan, your scenario is fine and all but fails to address a threat that a Canada military could deal with. Your commandos are a small group, traveling with forged documents right? Exactly how does a brigade, or air squadron stop them? They can’t, it turns to more of a police type action than military one.

Airman, I’m still waiting for a valid, credible threat to Canada. I’ll even be generous and open it up to your “Fortress North America”. The threat needs to be credible, preventable with a military and within 30 years. That takes us to 2035 or so.

Elvis, the missions I mention all took place in the last 15 years. Some under UN auspices, some under NATO. In various cases, we led the mission. Seems slightly more than mere tokenism. The progressive reduction in military spending may put at the point where we can not fulfill our obligations. That was the sole point of the article. We are not yet currently at that point.

I also find it strange that our history of global intervention under multilateral organizations is so easy dismissed, when within the US there is outrageous debate over becoming involved in areas not considered strategic.

[msklystron]

@smiling bandit

…I find it more likely that Canada will dissolve into civil war than try to conquer the US…Mexico does not have any similar obligations. Also, they couldn’t make a first-rate armed force if they tried. They simply don’t have the money…Sadly, both Germany and Canada spend their money poorly. Lets not beat around the bush here: you aren’t getting enough bang for your buck. You’re not nearly as bad as Germany in this, though.

Civil War in Canada? Why would we bother?

The federal separatist party, The Bloc Quebecois, works within the parliamentary system to push their agenda. The Quebecois complain, demand a referendum, which turns out to be in favour of Quebec remaining within Canada. The feds throw them a profitable contract or two until the next call for referendum. In the 70s, We had one kidnapping incident by a small pack of separatists from the loonie fringe and our PM at the time invoked the War Measures Act. That put a stop to that nonsense.

Or maybe you were thinking Newfoundland would start a civil war? Or the West? At least our westerners have guns. The east coasters would have to lob lobsters at their countrymen. Senate reform, recognition of regional issues are being sorted out in my country. These things take time. But we won’t do anything as undignified as hurl bombs and grenades at one another.

Canada should increase spending on the military so that our soldiers have decent accomodations, pay and proper equipment. But the size and might of our force should be increased only enough to meet our NATO commitments. We will leave the job of being self-designated world police to your folks to the south.

Before you question our spending, take a look at your own. You spent an awful lot in terms of lives and resources in Iraq so that your president could impress his Daddy. Daddy wasn’t impressed by the way.

[Otto]

@Airman Doors

You’re right, Otto. What I meant to say was that if the Canadians let their military go to hell that it’ll be the Somalis helping them. Silly me.

Thank you for being so obtuse and bringing ne back to my senses.

Look jackass, you’re the one who’s claimed that the Canadians have let their military get to this state because they are depending on the United States to defend it. Either back it up or back it off.

[Airman_Doors_USAF]

@Otto

Look jackass, you’re the one who’s claimed that the Canadians have let their military get to this state because they are depending on the United States to defend it. Either back it up or back it off.

Hey, who defends France? Right, France does. Who defends Vietnam? Right, Vietnam does. If the politicians get their way, who defends Canada? Err…nobody.

Like we’d allow anything to happen to Canada. It’s definitely not in our own self-interest to do that, and since Canada’s military has effectively ceased to be a viable modern fighting force…well, I’ll let you draw the conclusions from that. Something you’ve proven unwilling to do, preferring to call me a jackass rather than facing reality.