Am I missing something here? You can’t REALLY think that counts?
[aside]I have to say that I find it interesting that so many are up in arms about the US criticizing another nation’s military when that’s just about all the US hears all day, every day?[/aside]
I think that his point was that you aren’t using that to defend Canada.
personaly I think its a good thing we dont waste money on the military, and the U.S should stop telling us what to do
I can’t agree more. But it’s not going to help the US either way - it’s going to help Canada.
And then Elvis pops in with:
First of all, your numbers are false. Canadian expenditures are about one third on a per capita basis.
I’ll ask, again; what Canadian military obligations is the USA paying for? Specific examples, please. I don’t see the U.S. federal government kicking in any of the $12 billion or so we spend every year.
Hey, I DO think Canada should spend more on defense. But to benefit us, not the US.
And then Sam Stone throws in with:
I find it both amazing and appalling that a person who claims to be a Canadian
A) believes Canada was a “Colony of Great Britain” in 1939,
B) Is unaware that Britain and Canada were fighting that war and (successfully) defending themselves for two years before American entry, though granting the UK was helped by Lend-Lease, and
C) Is also unaware that Canada actually DID have a large military during the Second World War, so the relevance of this phony example to the current situation is not all that apparent.
Again, I must return to my above comment, that the concensus among Canadians is that the Liberal government is fucking up our military. Insofar as that is concerned, Dubya is correct. However, we also agree that it is not his place to dictate to us what we should and should not do with our military. The real question becomes exactly how do we, the masses, demonstrate our dissatisfaction with Liberal military policy? Since they have a large majority and there are no prospects on the horizon for a viable opposition, and since the military issue isn’t even really a plank in their platform–they’re getting re-elected on the basis of other factors–I can’t think of a way to get them to sit up and take notice of this issue. That’s the part that pisses me off.
(BTW, I still think that we should fire up the old assembly line in Malton and start mass-producing AVRO Arrows.)
RickJay: Oh, come on. You’ve known me on here long enough to know that I have a solid understanding of Canadian and WWII history. I’m fully aware of how and when the U.S. entered the war. I also know exactly how large Canada’s armed forces were. In fact, earlier in this thread I was lamenting the fact that Canada used to have a large, world-class military.
I was answering the specific claim that the U.S. has NEVER defended Canadian interests. Now, if you want to talk about a ridiculous assertion, that’s it right there.
Does the fact that we haven’t been attacked mean that the U.S. hasn’t defended us? That’s like saying the police are useless if there is no crime. Take the police away, and see how much crime you have.
The U.S. spent far more than us on the military during the Cold War. I’d say they defended us quite effectively.
And in any event, aren’t they defending us RIGHT NOW? Osama Bin Laden specifically declared Canada an enemy in his last audio tape. And the U.S. is carrying the fight to Osama Bin Laden. Saddam Hussein is a threat to al of us, but we won’t be able to contribute a proportionate amount of money and manpower to that conflict.
Oh, and how about the Gulf War? How much would you be paying for a tank of gas right now if the U.S. hadn’t led a coalition to overthrow Saddam? What would the world be like today if Saddam had been allowed to keep Kuwait? Would a nuke already have gone off in the Middle East? Would Saddam have gone into Saudi Arabia?
Now, we pulled a fair share of our weight in that one, to our credit. But that was before Chretien had a chance to gut our military. Did you know that we still haven’t replaced many of the munitions we dropped 11 years ago?
And if the U.S. missile defense shield ever becomes operational, we will live under it in safety without spending a nickel of our own money. The U.S. will have spent hundreds of billions on it by then.
We live under the umbrella of a Pax Americana. The only reason we can afford to gut our military like we have is because Uncle Sam is picking up a good chunk of the check for us. The same goes for other countries. The mere existance of a supreme American military power suppresses conflict throughout the world.
People have been claiming that the fact that the U.S. spends a greater percentage of its GDP on the military than other major countries is proof that the U.S. spends too much. I see it the opposite way - I see a lot of countries that essentially took advantage of the U.S’s power to simply defer the responsibility for their own defense to save money.
Comparing per capita Canadian military spending with per capita American military spending is not a valid comparison. The USA has a well established military-industrial complex, which effectively pours American tax dollars into American industry. With Canada, the Canadian tax dollars would for the most part be spent outside of Canada.
You could resurrect the wooden navy. And build Mosquitos.
Which makes me wonder: would a wooden airplane have stealth characteristics? My guess is no as the engine would still be metal. I dunno really.
Twistoffate: Pardon me while I convoluticate (Yes, I know that is not a word). I mentioned Clinton in this thread simply because he is the previous U.S. president. If we consider the possibility that Bush may well be a moron we need a basis for comparison. Clinton is that basis, for me. If there is a need for Canada to build its military, the need is likely based on world terrorism. Therefore, to me anyway, judging Bush’s fight against al Qaeda vis-a-vis Clinton helps establsh his moronclivity. (see above) [sub]Get it? Bush mangles words.[/sub]
Simply put, Clinton the genius (Rhodes scholar, Yale, etc.) did less than Bush the supposed moron. Therefore, IMO, Chretien is not only rude and foolish, but also wrong. Why foolish? When 85% (I think) of your exports go one place…
As for the OP, of course Canada should be able to project military power. What good is a purely defensive force in Canada?, Michael Moore movies (Canadian Bacon) notwithstanding. Actually, defending yourself from Michael Moore… I digress.
Furthermore, it is axiomatic that a military must be properly supplied to mitigate unnecessary wartime casualties and peacetime accidents. Or, in the alternative, disband the military. I don’t see any tanks massed in Detroit pointed north, yet. The latter course means that Canada can stand in judgment of the U.S. on all international issues but have no real effect on anything. Be it peacekeeping, old-fashined war, nation-building, or humanitarian missions, Canada will be there on the sidelines bitching at everyone else to do something.
Pardon long delays in my responses for a while. Beagle has a puppy. Now I’m Beagles, or beagleful (Bushspeak is fun). Housebreaking and playtime are a full time job.
I’d like to see some money spent on living conditions for military personnel. Last I saw, the homes on the military reserve in my hometown were falling apart.
That being said, I think we have higher priorities than beefing up our military with the latest technology. Our health care system is falling apart, and while the economy’s improved, quite a few people are still looking for work. Then there are ecological issues that have been pushed to the side far too long and are of pressing importance. Since the Liberals have been so passionate about cutting taxes over the last few years, there’s not enough cash to go around.
As well, most people I know are crossing their fingers and hoping we don’t send troops to Iraq. Except for the real hawks, I think most people in this country are beginning to feel that Canada’s military missions lately have been less about defence and more about economic imperialism – protecting our interests in other countries, at the expense of the people in those nations. Or about toadying to the US.
Frankly, I agree with the comments posted by grienspace. Canada has more to fear from our ostensible allies than our obvious enemies. Having a joke of a military does have one advantage: while our allies may not take us seriously, neither do our enemies. No one’s likely to invade Canada, and it’s unlikely anyone’s going to waste a bomb on a country that’s not a threat.
It also means we’ll be more wise in choosing our military commitments. Morons rush in where wise nations fear to tread.
It’s interesting that there is so much media attention to this insult to Bush made by Canadian a staffer off the record when relatively little was made of a similar insult of US staffers to Chretien a few months ago
Reminds me of a Simpson episode where Lisa sells Homer a rock that she says protects Springfield from tigers. When Homer asks for proof she says “well, you don’t see any tigers around here.”
Why have we now been targeted? Because we participated in Afghanistan and may also in Iraq at the American’s request.
Who gave Saddam the ability to do this in the first place? Why is it our responsibilty to clean up America’s mess?
Why would Canada be a target in the first place? Do you think if the US didn’t exist that there would be any nukes aimed at us?
I don’t dispute that the US military protects a lot of the world, but why is this? I also agree that we should have a stronger military for more effective peacekeeping missions and to shoulder our fair share of the burdens within our various alliances, but we should determine what the fair share is by first deciding what is the American’s responsibility in the first place.
Jimbo
[QUOTE]
The real question becomes exactly how do we, the masses, demonstrate our dissatisfaction with Liberal military policy? Since they have a large majority and there are no prospects on the horizon for a viable opposition, and since the military issue isn’t even really a plank in their platform–they’re getting re-elected on the basis of other factors–I can’t think of a way to get them to sit up and take notice of this issue. [\QUOTE] In a democracy there are ways to get the ruling party to examine issues of concern to the masses. I think this shows that the masses were’nt really all that concerned about the state of the military although I think that is changing now, expect policy changes soon.
My source would be out of date, then. But the point stands.
Looking at the trees, not the forest, friend. The list includes everything NATO does, and everything the US does on its own that benefits its allies as well. There is no list available of things Canada simply hasn’t even considered doing because it has chosen not to have the capability (Sam Stone has shown his willingness to proclaimi what the US should have done in Rwanda in the name of all the industrial democracies, though). Others have already mentioned airlift, if you’re still insisting on seeing a tree.
Sam, there’s a substantial difference between an ally happening to fight the same evils you are, which was obviously the case in WWII, and the assertion made in this thread that the U.S. was paying to defend Canada. I’m still a little unclear on how Canada was a “colony,” too.
Perhaps our definitions differ, but what I’m looking for is evidence the U.S. is incurring a marginal cost in order to defend Canada - not fight enemies they’d be fighting anyway, and not to defend the United States in a way that by definition just happens to include Canada no matter what we spend on the military. More specifically, where is the US incurring cost to defend Canada it wouldn’t be incurring if we spent more? I’ll concede the airlift cost, which strikes me as being a pretty small cost in the grand scheme of things.
Again; show me where Canada’s defense is costing them anything. I can see an argument that defending Kuwait is costing the U.S. money, or South Korea, or Israel. But let’s be frank; what’s involved in defending Canada? The U.S. is fighting a war it has to fight to defend ITSELF. The civilized nations of the world benefit, and personally, I wish Canada was doing more, just because it’s the right thing to do. (And we did spend money and four lives defending the U.S., so let’s not forget that, hmmm?) But let’s not pretend Canada’s inaction is costing the U.S. Would they trust us to fight this war for them? I sincerely doubt it. I just can’t see the United States spending less money on defense than they do if Canada spent more.
Look, Canada has a RIGHT to make these spending decisions. I personally do not agree with the direction it’s taken, but as a sovereign nation it’s our right to do that, and it’s ridiculous for other countries to interfere in the budgeting process. If the USA doesn’t like it, then don’t airlift our troops when Jean comes begging, and don’t work Canada into your (speaking third person) defense plans. But don’t tell sovereign nations how to spend their damned tax dollars. If a Canadian started harping on the US to spend less on defence I’d be the first person to tell him to shut the fuck up.
Sam, you don’t have to tell ME the Canadian Forces needs more money and better leadership. I was IN the Forces. I know firsthand. It was embarassing.
Okay, you Canadian military spending hawks, some figures that you need to know
That is nothing to be ashamed of.
Just because the Liberals have provided Canada with a superb economy, does not neccessarily mean we should evaluate our military spending based on portion of GDP.
Noone except the Americans believe that they aren’t spending enough on the military, and they rank 53rd in the world?Obviously this standard that Canada’s military hawks like to use is absolutely meaningless.
By the way, a country that ranks 35th in the world in terms of population having a military budget that ranks 14th in the world is pretty good, don’t you think ?
Since when was it a universally accepted fact that having the largest possible military is optimal? Does anyone think that a bunch of warmongers like the U.S. should be dictating military expenditure for every ally country? That’s a load of bullshit.
Everyone’s laughing at countries like Iceland for not having any military at all. Are they worse off for their apparent neutrality and pacifism? I think not. They seem to be doing pretty well, thank you very much (and anyone who wants to suggest that people are stupid to live on a frozen volcano can just go shove his head somewhere foul).
Fuck Bush’s administration for even beginning to suggest that it should be able to dictate Canada’s military spending. Apparently (see Iceland) having a military is conditionally mandatory in NATO. And the UN?
Whatever.