[Guest]

B.S.<br /> <br /> Hilter would not have left the Swiss alone if it was not in his interest.<br /> <br /> Dennis Baker

[Marcarc]

Oh yes, we forgot about your Phd in History specializing in european history in the mid 20th century. Come now, if you have an 'opinion' then back it up, if you have some knowledge of Hitler's policies that everyone else lacks then lets here the arguments. If everybody who hears reasonable arguments just dismisses them on a whim then we might as well give up on the website. Don't we have enough 'anons' for that?

[Guest]

ya your right, hilter was shaken in his boots of the swiss, thats why he never invaded.<br /> <br /> <br /> Dennis Baker

[Marcarc]

Good reply, well thought out responses to the many points made in the article.

[Guest]

and this relates to Canada's military ...HOW?<br /> <br /> Dennis Baker

[Marcarc]

I didn't think I had to spell it out, and I'm sure to many I don't, but here goes. The swiss military system involves every citizen, and every citizen is armed. As the article says, Switzerland had many tactical advantages in that even though the germans were eventually planning to conquer them, it's use would be mitigated because all the passages through the country would be destroyed by the defenders and therefore have to be rebuilt. True enough. <br /> <br /> The main point however is that every citizen is armed, unlike France and Austria where the elites basically surrenderred and fled and left their defenseless civilians to deal with it the best they can. That's what happens you have a 'standing army' protecting civilians. Personally, if I am invaded I bloody well want to be armed. Otherwise you get rounded up and...well, we've seen the worst case scenarios already.<br /> <br /> We are already seeing the elites of canada basically giving up the country without a shot, so we see just how effective having an increased military presence would be. In canada, of course, I have no political powers apart from choosing which dictators will rule me every three or four years, unlike the swiss system. If canadians actually controlled their government I would advocate a military system much like the swiss. Currently, serving in military only means you risk your life for badly planned peacekeeping missions or accompanying the states on their imperial ventures. No thank you. Likewise the swiss have a military system of armed neutrality, much like scandinavia, and that's also what I would support. In cases like world war two, while there is ample evidence their banks and corporations acted unethically, the same is true of the banks and corporations in virtually every allied country, canada in particular, who were berated by the british for using the war as an excuse to build ontario industry for the post war rather than working to capacity (most of the steel mills in the maritimes and out west were closed).<br /> <br /> So, to sum up, Canada military system = bad. Swiss military system = good. That's the point of the article.

[Guest]

It's not the Military is the Media allowing and participating the election of American puppet politicians!<br /> <br /> Coupled with CIA enlisted canadian beurocrates<br /> <br /> Dennis Baker

[Kory Yamashita]

Marcarc, interesting article. With such a defense-oriented military, it makes me wonder about a Swiss man I know who dodged the mandatory service when he was younger...

[Marcarc]

I wouldn't be surprised, and feel that that should always be an option. There are those of a particular faith or philosophy who will not resort to violence no matter what, I certainly bend in that direction, but as I said if we actually had a different sort of government then I would have no problem serving, providing it was in a defensive capacity. At the same time I think that there should be options for pacifists, such as serving in non-training ways. One could make the argument that 'everybody' would sign up to be pacifist, this is not unthinkable as Switzerland has had many referenda on whether to disband their military (so far they have all lost). As argued elsewhere, canada is under no threat militarily, but certainly is economically which requires a different strategy. <br /> One could argue that if you live in a culture of such personal political responsibility where people are armed they need no military structure to know when to fight.

[Kory Yamashita]

Actually, the gentleman that I was referring to did serve by teaching languages to medical personel in the Canadian armed forces, I believe.<br /> <br /> Personally, I'm a strong supporter of the concept of civil service. Don't feel like being trained for armed combat? Fine, go clean up a polluted creek bed, build a bridge, build soccer fields, pick up litter, retrofit buildings for environmental (energy) efficiency, build parks... the options are endless. And in return, you get free education (trained militia as well as civil service). But alas, maybe I'm too much of an optimist...