[Canadaka]

so you think Canada will be in another world war 2 lvl conflict?

even if it hasn't changed all that much, which i think it is as it has in the past, Canada's roll has/is changing.

We spearheaded the "peacekeeping" and i think that is something to be proud of and something we should focus on.

$1:

At $12 billion this year, Canada is the sixth largest military spender in NATO and the 16th largest in the world, even though we have only the 34th largest population.

[WarHawk]

Canadaka Canadaka:

so you think Canada will be in another world war 2 lvl conflict?

I don't know, but I do think it's incredibly naive of you to say that we won't. It did happen, and it could easily happen again. WW2 wasn't all that long ago you know.

$1:

even if it hasn't changed all that much, which i think it is as it has in the past, Canada's roll has/is changing.

And it's going to leave us unprepared for when a major conflict does happen.

$1:

We spearheaded the "peacekeeping" and i think that is something to be proud of and something we should focus on.

The role of the military should be for war first, and peacekeeping second.

[fred22]

Hi candaka,
I admire your patiotism as i do this site. Peacekeeping has been used as a nice polite rationale for our armed forces. It's nice sounding and makes us look very nice. The problem is we do not have the forces for it. The demand is based on an army that was much larger before and in many ways well equipped. The peak was in the earyl eighteirses but the nineties were the locust years and our army was gutted. Inspite of the pride and the professionalism we just did keep up the numbers and the kit. Our contributions became smaller and the circumstances more difficult as our men were put in where there was no peace to keep. Underequipped and outnumbered by people who wanted war not peace they paid a heavy price for any success they may have achieved. The only reason there was success was the long serving pro's who were there and some very gutsy reservists who actually fought battles at places like Medak pocket in Yugoslavia. Rhuanda was the absolute nadir for the Candian army. Small forces misdirected by a Blotaed UN bureacracy forced our men to watch helplessly as a disater of biblical proprtions took place.
Peacekeeeping is hwen a small force montors or impliments an agreement between two sides to end a conflict. This is not the case much anymore. Now it is peacemaking where large forces are used to imtimidate parties into stopping foghting and actually forrce them too. This was the case in yugoslavia when NATO under the yanks finally ended that conflict by threatenning with NATO allies to kick some ass. Blue helmetted boyscouts could not have done this it took big mean ugly tanks and other mechanised nastiness and the threat to use them. Outside Srebinica Dutch peacekeepers were pushed aside and a huge slaughter ensued of muslim men. The Dutch were vastly outnumberred and the blue helmet made not a goddamn bit of differnace. What they needed were tanks self propelled artillery and lots of angry young men to prevent it.
We live in a bubble to a large extent. Unlike Rhuanda Yugoslavias, Congo , Sri Lanka, Somalia and others we enjoy the benefits of a good life. The way we can help other and defend ourselves is a strrong robust military. The we can help others defend themselves. Our aid will not be shipped and stolen as it is frequently now and if the UN goes in we can put in robust forces that can hand the beans to those who need them and the bullets to those who need that.

[dgthe3]

Low intensity conflict is how war was traditionally fought, it is mainly a wester idea to fight huge organized battles against similar sized forces.

In regards to building up the military in case of another war, on of the biggest causes of the Great War was the arms race. So in preparing for anohter large war, we may indeed contribute to one.

[SprCForr]

"...You can't compare the military rols of south korea and Canada..."

Sure you can. The primary role of the South Korean military is to keep the North Korean military from rolling over the 38th parallel, again. They were caught by suprise once, and they'll never let that happen again.

"...Sure it takes time to ramp up for a war effort such as it did in WW2, but your saying to always be at that state of readyness, If Canada was at that state for the last 50 years, imagine how much money that would have cost!..."

We did stay at a high level of readiness. All through the Cold War actually. 4 CMGB along with the RCAF Air div was equipped at war level and manning was kept to about the 90% level. Units earmarked for reinforcement were sent regularly for FallEx to keep up their skills and exercise the equipment held in war stock. Constant practice recalls and deployments to the war assembly positions kept the units on their toes.

"...plus Canada has its allies, i can never see another nation attacking Canada on the north american continent, and if this did happen, do you think they would just stand by and watch."

Thank God yes we have allies. So did the Poles in '39. What if nobody showed up? Extreme? yes, but if you can't rely on yourself who can you rely on? No one, thats who. You can see the pressure on Canada now about defense commitments. Our allies expect and need a certain level of participation in our current treaty obligations. This pressure would lessen to a great extent if we actually maintained a respectable military presence, not huge, not lavish, just respectable. We could always opt out of NATO and be truly neutral like Sweden and Switzerland. We'll need to spend more and make military service universal to realize that. Imagine the screaming if that were to happen.

There is nothing wrong with being a leader in peacekeeping. That is what we as Canadians are proud of and thats great, it is a noble ideal. But when the time comes, and it will come because we really haven't evolved that far, you need to be ready to kill the bastards.

[Scape]

Canadaka Canadaka:

BUT WHY does our military have to be a war military ready for total war, so what if thats the way things were done. Canada should be a leader.

Who do we have to goto war with, who would attack Canada.

I agree more money should be spent on military, but not an old military, with old ways. but on peacekeeping and special ops like JTF2 when there needs to be a little dirty work done.

I just dont see it logical anymore for Canada to try and maintain a full army, navy and air force, then i disgree with spending the money, we have more important things that need fixing within the country, or just send the money as direct aid to the places that need it, or even raise the amount of Canadian soldiers in the UN.

We do not have nor intend to have a 'full' army, navy and air force. Example: we have no carriers. They are not cost effective enough to justify their existence when a combination of cruisers and subs will augment patrols needed off our shores and provide support for our international deployments. Our supply ships do need upgrade and we can make use of a strategic air supply wing for the air force, something like a replacement or upgrade of the C-130 Hercules. Spec ops are great stuff but they do not win the wars they speed them along it is still the army at large that determines what the outcome will be.

If we look at the defense of Canada as a responsibility as a contributing and responsible member of a greater global community it is important that we have the proper muscle to back up our actions. That requires that we are able to get there and project force wherever required at a moments notice.

[WarHawk]

dgthe3 dgthe3:

Low intensity conflict is how war was traditionally fought, it is mainly a wester idea to fight huge organized battles against similar sized forces.

What about the mongols?

$1:

In regards to building up the military in case of another war, on of the biggest causes of the Great War was the arms race. So in preparing for anohter large war, we may indeed contribute to one.

No. The arms race was a result of Germany's unification and expansion. It wasn't what caused the war. There were several contributing factors, like the German occupation of French territory after the Franco-Prussian war, and Germany's expansion into Britains "backyard" in the pacific, so to speak.

[Scape]

Canadaka Canadaka:

I realise that having a strong military protects a states Soverignty, but that is a very old way of thought, things will and have to change at some point. Some europian countries have a very small military, you see anyone going, hey they don't have a military, lets go take them over and plant our flag! I think the state of geopolitics is past that, in the west anyway.

War was the only way of thought before 1914. The league of Nations and the UNs primary purpose was and is to make war illegal. The league failed because it did not follow through and the UN has been able to maintain the precedent of keeping war illegal since's it's inception. Almost every war now has not been to the benefit of the attacker and border changes are never recognized under such conditions. However, with Iraq the UN has been bypassed. These things happen from time to time like Korea and for the most part the UN has been able to overcome given time. There is a danger here that the center may not hold and if that was to hold true then wars could be considered a legitimate means to an end again. Just a few days ago China set down laws that would enable it to retake Taiwan. This would make the war considered 'internal' and therefore international considerations could be dismissed.

Build up to war?

$1:

Indonesia has sent four F-16 fighter planes and three more warships to join the four already stationed in the oil-rich waters off Borneo Island. The Royal Malaysian Navy has also deployed two warships to the area, further adding to the tensions. Though both governments continue to insist that the dispute over conflicting claims as to who controls the resource-rich offshore area will be resolved diplomatically, the buildup of military forces in the waters continues to be a cause for concern.

As you can see war can happen out of nowhere. We should be much better armed than as we are now.

[WarHawk]

I think the UN is on the way out now, it is clear that corruption runs deep. I like this idea about having a new coalition of democratic nations.

[dgthe3]

There have been 4 M.A.I.N causes identified that are responsible for the start of WWI, aside from the assasination of Franz Ferdinand. These are:

Militarism: basicallly the build up of armies on both sides, an arms race
Aliances: self explanitory
Imperialism: the desire to expand the nations borders, or to create an empire
Nationalism: taking too much pride in your own country.

I am not too familiar with the Mongols, but what i know is that they were roving bands of 'barbarians'/wariors, kinda similar to the Vikings. Generally small groups that used fear as much as their swords. Other than that, i am not too sure about them, please fill me in WarHawk.

[WarHawk]

dgthe3 dgthe3:

There have been 4 M.A.I.N causes identified that are responsible for the start of WWI, aside from the assasination of Franz Ferdinand. These are:

Militarism: basicallly the build up of armies on both sides, an arms race
Aliances: self explanitory
Imperialism: the desire to expand the nations borders, or to create an empire
Nationalism: taking too much pride in your own country.

An arms race alone doesn't cause a war, there is usualy a reason behind it, like imperialism. Also they were building up their militaries to specifically wage war, not to defend themselves like in the case of Canada.

$1:

I am not too familiar with the Mongols, but what i know is that they were roving bands of 'barbarians'/wariors, kinda similar to the Vikings. Generally small groups that used fear as much as their swords. Other than that, i am not too sure about them, please fill me in WarHawk.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mongol_Empire

[dgthe3]

Ok, that link doesn't help to explain why you mentioned them in responce to large armies facing each other.

$1:

An arms race alone doesn't cause a war, there is usualy a reason behind it, like imperialism. Also they were building up their militaries to specifically wage war, not to defend themselves like in the case of Canada.

No, it doesn't cause a war. But it helps to get everybody ready for a fight. All the reasons i mentioned are interdependant and causes a positive feedback loop. And the reasons at the time were to defend themselves agaisnt the other who were building up their armies. However, one nation such as Canada rebuilding it's army would not cause much of a global problem.

[WarHawk]

dgthe3 dgthe3:

Ok, that link doesn't help to explain why you mentioned them in responce to large armies facing each other.

Well, being the largest empire in the history of mankind you'd think they would have to wouldn't you say?

$1:

No, it doesn't cause a war. But it helps to get everybody ready for a fight. All the reasons i mentioned are interdependant and causes a positive feedback loop. And the reasons at the time were to defend themselves agaisnt the other who were building up their armies. However, one nation such as Canada rebuilding it's army would not cause much of a global problem.

Then what's your point?

[dgthe3]

$1:

dgthe3 wrote:
Ok, that link doesn't help to explain why you mentioned them in responce to large armies facing each other.

Well, being the largest empire in the history of mankind you'd think they would have to wouldn't you say?

No. If you knew how the empire grew and opperated, then it wouldn't. In fact, the opposite could be more true. If you have such a large empire, then all you can enforce are general guidelines for what the population should do. By having very strict punishment, people follow those rules better. They expanded by roving from place to place, saying that they are in charge, and moved on, leaving behind destruction and the aformentioned rules.

I said i didn't know much of the Mongolian Empire, i did know how they ruled China, and the link you provided drew me to the conclusions you see above.

As far as my point on the arms race goes, there was talk of building an army to prevent conflict, i said that it could contribute to another large war. I made no mention of Canada in that post.

[Scape]

WarHawk WarHawk:

I think the UN is on the way out now, it is clear that corruption runs deep. I like this idea about having a new coalition of democratic nations.

Perceptions that the UN is hopelessly corrupt and must be replaced and that bloc's of nations working in like minded collations serves the global body politic serves the agenda of the people who want to replace what the UN is and replace it with themselves. They are globalists and highly cliche think tanks that want to mold the world into their image. Control, primary who they deem should be allowed it, is their focus. This does not make them democratic but extremely exclusive. Democratic nations may very well be involved in the process but that does not make the process democratic.