# Canada should double defence budget...



## Pelao (Oct 2, 2003)

The first part of a detailed senate report:

Senate defence report 

A Globe summary:
Globe 

Interesting.


----------



## Dr.G. (Aug 4, 2001)

Pelao, this could be undertaken. If we abolish the Senate and their golden pensions, and spread the money around to those in the military and their families, we would then have enough money in the regular military budget for this expansion.


----------



## MACSPECTRUM (Oct 31, 2002)

and let's not forget the GG and LGs

Canada's military / defence spending should be changed to include search and resuce for emergencies such as fires, floods, storms, etc.

this would be a much better use of money and better serve the average canadian


----------



## Dr.G. (Aug 4, 2001)

Michael, yes, we could throw in/out the GG and LG's as well, and take away paid junkets by MPs as well. Then, use the money for peace keeping, national emergencies that need federal troops (e.g., floods), and for military families, many of whom are at the poverty line.


----------



## Beej (Sep 10, 2005)

Dr.G. said:


> Michael, yes, we could throw in/out the GG and LG's as well, and take away paid junkets by MPs as well. Then, use the money for peace keeping, national emergencies that need federal troops (e.g., floods), and for military families, many of whom are at the poverty line.


 A lot of those ideas, even combined, wouldn't raise enough money to make a serious dent in this. To get the kind of money the Senate recommends will require significant change or devoting future revenue growth (after 'standard' expenditure increases) to the military. Add to this our inaction on Kyoto, somewhat uncompetitive tax structure (maybe tax levels too) and a host of other problems and you're left with one true solution...legalize pot and tax the hell out of it.


----------



## martman (May 5, 2005)

I oppose the idea of doubling our millitary. I like it just the way it is, small.


----------



## ArtistSeries (Nov 8, 2004)

Dr.G. said:


> Michael, yes, we could throw in/out the GG and LG's as well, and take away paid junkets by MPs as well. Then, use the money for peace keeping, national emergencies that need federal troops (e.g., floods), and for military families, many of whom are at the poverty line.


Do you have a kind of government to propose? 
I surely don't hope for a kind of American government, because cronyism and abuses seems much worse there....


----------



## MACSPECTRUM (Oct 31, 2002)

Beej said:


> A lot of those ideas, even combined, wouldn't raise enough money to make a serious dent in this. To get the kind of money the Senate recommends will require significant change or devoting future revenue growth (after 'standard' expenditure increases) to the military. Add to this our inaction on Kyoto, somewhat uncompetitive tax structure (maybe tax levels too) and a host of other problems and you're left with one true solution...legalize pot and tax the hell out of it.


1. you may be surprised at how much money can be saved
2. it would certainly be a good faith gesture by our gov't to avg. Canadians

Canada, as a business, doesn't work. That is the model of the U.S. Our population is too compressed into too little an area.

We need to think of Canada and Canadians ahead of provincial/municipal interests.
Ontario has been a "have" province for many years and for many years Ontario has paid into Confederation.
Why is it that we rarely hear about Ontario complaining about not getting its fair share? CPC rhetoric aside.


----------



## Beej (Sep 10, 2005)

MACSPECTRUM said:


> 1. you may be surprised at how much money can be saved
> 2. it would certainly be a good faith gesture by our gov't to avg. Canadians
> 
> Canada, as a business, doesn't work. That is the model of the U.S. Our population is too compressed into too little an area.
> ...


1. Probably not. For example, the total budget for MP's staff, office and travel is about $100 million per year, of which a lot is necessary administrative work and travel to and from their riding. The Senate costs about $70 million (including their salaries, I think). So getting rid of Senate, GG, LG and MP 'junkets' would get you probably less than $500 million pear, which doesn't get you far towards a $10-$20 billion spending boost. 

Dalton McGuinty recently started playing the complain game, which is politically astute, especially with the current Federal government, but it's disappointing to see how almost every province in the country apparently feels 'done in' by confederation.


----------



## Pelao (Oct 2, 2003)

> I oppose the idea of doubling our millitary. I like it just the way it is, small.


But small is not the way it is. It is small and ineffective. This is not to say the forces don't do their work well, but that they cannot do all the tasks alloted to them. If doubled in terms of budget, the military would still be small (90,000 in uniform) but would be effective.


----------



## Pelao (Oct 2, 2003)

> Canada, as a business, doesn't work


And thank goodness too - because it is not a business.


----------



## Dr.G. (Aug 4, 2001)

Right you are, Pelao. Of course, that old phrase of Calvin Coolidge is alive and well in the US today -- "The business of America is business."


----------



## MACSPECTRUM (Oct 31, 2002)

Pelao said:


> And thank goodness too - because it is not a business.


exactly and those that want to privatize everything should understand this sentiment


----------



## DEWLine (Sep 24, 2005)

They understand it, many of them do. There's just a largish chunk of these people who've decided that they are just fed up with having to put up with our thinking on the matter at all, regardless of whether or not our thinking is right or wrong.


----------



## Vandave (Feb 26, 2005)

MACSPECTRUM said:


> Why is it that we rarely hear about Ontario complaining about not getting its fair share? CPC rhetoric aside.


Because Ontario controls the federal government.


----------



## MACSPECTRUM (Oct 31, 2002)

Vandave said:


> Because Ontario controls the federal government.


First I'm told Quebec controls the feds. Now it's Ontario.
Oh, look at the sources. Alberta and BC.
You guys better get more immigrants (not likely in AB) or better start having more babies.


----------



## Vandave (Feb 26, 2005)

We definately need to beef our military up. But before we start spending money, we have to decide on what our goals are.

Peacekeeping makes you feel all good and stuff, but I think a traditional kick ass army does more for Canada on the international scene. We have lost a lot of clout due to our small military. Did the Americans really lose out by us not sending troops to Iraq? No, just politically.

I think we need to specialize in the following two areas:

1. Navy - We need to assert control over the north as it will become more important with Global warming. We need the ability to track all ships within a reasonable range of our country. The Spanish should not be fishing in our waters, nor should Fujian refugee ships be able to land on Vancouver island without us knowing. With globalism and the growth of China, it is important for Canada to be able to defend shipping lanes.

2. Special Forces - We need to have highly trained and highly mobile special forces teams like JTF2 to counter the threat of terrorism.

Here's the controversial part.... The remainder of our forces should be integrated into the US military. Canada should take on specialized roles (e.g. anti submarine warface, engineering, peacekeeping, etc...) within their armed forces. This will save the Americans money, but will also help us because we can use their resources. If Canada refuses to participate in a US conflict, it would take on more meaning because it would be difficult for them to fill the holes that we would normally fill. Obviously both armed forces would need some overlap, but we would take the lead on certains aspects.

Politically, I think this would give us more clout with the Americans. At the moment, they don't lose out when we don't participate. If we doubled our forces, it would still be that way. Under my idea, our opinions start to matter and we would have their ear. And no, I don't feel this would compromise our sovereignty.


----------



## lpkmckenna (Jul 4, 2004)

Dr.G. said:


> Pelao, this could be undertaken. If we abolish the Senate and their golden pensions, and spread the money around to those in the military and their families, we would then have enough money in the regular military budget for this expansion.


Pelao: Senate says "Double military spending in Canada."

Dr. G: "Eliminate Senate in Canada to double military spending."

lpkmckenna: roflmao

Before anyone asks, I don't have an opinion on this report.


----------



## Beej (Sep 10, 2005)

Vandave: Interesting points, I agree with some and haven't considered the others. Thank you for having the guts to lay out ideas in a non-combatitive  manner that are challenging.

I do think the knee-jerk reaction to any integration with the U.S. does not help Canada intelligently debate our options (like our sad state of health care debate). Do you have any more specific ideas on integration? I'm thinking it may be one of those things that sounds good, but to actually do it costs more than not to because redundancies would be needed (I doubt either nation wants to rely on services of the other).


----------



## MACSPECTRUM (Oct 31, 2002)

> Before anyone asks, I don't have an opinion on this report.


I guess that qualifies as "non-combative."


----------



## Pelao (Oct 2, 2003)

Well I think the report itseld sets out very clear overall goals, and then specifically for each of the 3 services, plus JTF2. Broadly speaking these are:

Protection of our borders and trade routes
Defence of our allies
Support of the civil authorities in times of terrorist attack or natural disaster
Support of foreign and foreign aid policies

I would not support integration of our forces into the US forces. Politically it would leave us weaker. Further, it would leave our forces necessarily unable to act independently. No thanks.

The formation of joint forces for specific tasks is another matter entirely.


----------



## Max (Sep 26, 2002)

> I would not support integration of our forces into the US forces. Politically it would leave us weaker. Further, it would leave our forces necessarily unable to act independently. No thanks.
> 
> The formation of joint forces for specific tasks is another matter entirely.


Agreed, big-time. Canada needs to beef up its armed forces in a big way, especially with regard to its navy... as has been mentioned, sovereignty in our Arctic waters is already dubious a notion, since we have precious little in the way of resources to hold and defend our own turf; we let our armed forces slide some more still, we will have no teeth left to back up our feeble warnings.

But that said, folding our units in with American armed forces will in no way increase our clout with American political masters commanding their armed forces. We would have to have an army a large order of magnitude greater than it currently is in order to have any sort of sway. Even then, it's a double-edged sword. We could find ourselves locked in with the Americans; already we have many ties to our southern neighbours and they are hardly exclusively and mutually beneficial on all levels of interaction.

Joint forces? Yes, certainly - where conditions/situations merit it. But adopting a policy whereby the majority of our armed forces gets absorbed into some kind of continental North American force (directed by the most powerful partner, of course) would not be my idea of good direction to take for Canadians. We should be careful of getting too close to our American neighbours, if only for the reason that the more we defer to them the more likely we will be taken for granted.


----------



## gastonbuffet (Sep 23, 2004)

More Weapons.

in Canada

What for???????????????

Who is going attack Canada? a terrorist? 

we need smart people, not bigger guns.


----------



## Max (Sep 26, 2002)

Smart people without guns still manage to get their heads blown off by people who do have guns. Perhaps the smart ones overestimate their own intelligence.

I am hardly an apologist for the military but I am interested enough in the history of the last century to understand that those who think in terms of peace and appeasement rarely understand why their countries have suddenly become overrun by hostile forces. I am a firm believer in history repeating itself, time and time again.

In other words, civilization is a nice construct, a pretty veneer beneath which lies very primal forces, ones having to do with acquisition by force, avarice, ruthless ambition, the toxic corruption of power for its own sake. If you feel that Canada is far beyond the reach of such everyday barbarism, then I respectfully submit that you may be enjoying a failure of imagination.

60 years ago our country was at war. A long time in human terms, but a mere eye-blink on the historical scale. I would love to believe that the world is curing itself of its blood-lust ways, but I rather doubt that it's going to happen in my lifetime.

If anything, competition for scarce resources is going to increase. No amount of trying to be nice and rosy in one's disposition will serve as an effective bulwark against tomorrow's enemy- who often happens to be, as history readily suggests, today's friend.


----------



## gastonbuffet (Sep 23, 2004)

"Perhaps the smart ones overestimate their own intelligence"

those are just a little smarter than your everyday moron. I was talking about "smart" smart. 

"they" don't need guns, but if guns happen to be needed, they'll get guns and people to operate them. In my experience, both ends of a gun are dangerous, even though a lot of people tend to think that the one where the munition comes out is the only dangerous one. wrong

but hey, that's mho, and i've seen that picture of you and your piece, so as of this momet , i forfeit my argument and proclare " ARM ON".

i'm gone.


----------



## gastonbuffet (Sep 23, 2004)

and I'm no pacifist wimp.

for the record.

Not that there is anything wrong about being a pacifist wimp


----------



## Max (Sep 26, 2002)

Hmmm... I don't own any guns, actually. Perhaps you've confused me with someone else.

But just in case you're still around... "smart" smart (as you say) people can still be bested by hungrier, more desperate, more determined types. Smart people who put too much stock in their intelligence can be betrayed by their own [email protected] complacency.

Anyway, sorry you're gone. Just when this was starting to get interesting.


----------



## kps (May 4, 2003)

I agree whole heartedly with Max's statement above regarding history repeating itself and I'm also pleasantly surprised that so many of you feel empathy toward our beleaguered armed forces.

It wasn't so long ago that we read reports of our military personnel being forced to obtain necessities at food banks. It's a shameful situation and one that needs immediate remedy.

We need to bolster all aspects of the armed forces --pronto. We need to give them their pride once again. 

I always felt that the Canadian Armed Forces should serve Canada first and foremost and then maintain their obligations to NATO and the UN. Not the other way around.

Patrolling our coastal waters is paramount, our SARS capability is paramount, so give them modern ships and aircraft instead of junk...and pay them a livable wage.


----------



## lpkmckenna (Jul 4, 2004)

kps said:


> It wasn't so long ago that we read reports of our military personnel being forced to obtain necessities at food banks. It's a shameful situation and one that needs immediate remedy.


Yes, but it was long ago (about 7 years). And it was dealt with. CF members received significant pay increases as result of the press coverage and a parlimentary study.

MOVING FORWARD: A Strategic Plan for Quality of Life Improvements in the Canadian Forces


----------



## Vandave (Feb 26, 2005)

Beej said:


> Vandave: Interesting points, I agree with some and haven't considered the others. Thank you for having the guts to lay out ideas in a non-combatitive  manner that are challenging.
> 
> I do think the knee-jerk reaction to any integration with the U.S. does not help Canada intelligently debate our options (like our sad state of health care debate). Do you have any more specific ideas on integration? I'm thinking it may be one of those things that sounds good, but to actually do it costs more than not to because redundancies would be needed (I doubt either nation wants to rely on services of the other).


I always thought Canada and the US should remove border guards (before everybody jumped on the bandwagon after 911). Our country is simply too large for us to actually believe the lie that we can stop drugs, illegal immigrants or terrorists from crossing each others border. As far as economics go, we already have free trade and eventually tarriffs will be removed. Instead of having an inward border, we should be looking outwards.

Canada and the US should have a limited number of entry points into North America at sea ports and airports. Both countries would staff these entry points and have the right of refusal to admit somebody into North America. Canada and the US would jointly patrol our coasts and airspace (already done under NORAD). 

As far as our air force goes, we are alrady integrated under NORAD for military responses. I think a Canadian was in charge during 911 (correct me if I am wrong). So, integration of military forces isn't really a radical or new concept. 

I am not advocating removing the ability of Canada or the US to act in isolation. I don't think that would best serve our needs.

As an example.... Canadian snipers are known to be amongst the best in the world. For that reason, our snipers played a big role in Afghanistan. The Americans have this capability on thier own of course, but we brought something unique to the table and integrated well with their Special Forces. Our snipers saved a number of their soldiers and did a hell of a job. This gives Canada the respect of the Americans and makes them want us to be on their side in military conflicts. Having peacekeepers doesn't command the same level of respect or political gain. 

Another example.... Our frigates are some of the fastest in the world and our ability to storm ships is well known. Canadians had a big role in the Persian gulf making sure large ships weren't smuggling weapons amongst other things. So again, the Americans can do this, but we just specialized in it.

By being specialized, the Americans and other allies will look to us for support in military operations. We are simply too small to be good at all things. Like it or not, we rely on the Americans already to conduct military operations. We don't have our own transport ships or heavy lift aircraft (or significance). 

Even Britain knows this. They are too small to do all things. Britain would not have won the Falklands conflict without logistical assistance from the US. And Britain brings unique things to the table in conflicts. The SAS beats all American special forces and the Americans know this. That's why they use the SAS for certain operations inside enemy territory.

There are all sorts of areas would could specialize in if we choose to do it. 

But like you say, I don't think many Canadians are willing to have an thoughtful debate about this, but will fallback on the old kneejerk reaction of anything but American.


----------



## Max (Sep 26, 2002)

gastonbuffet said:


> and I'm no pacifist wimp.
> 
> for the record.
> 
> Not that there is anything wrong about being a pacifist wimp


Gaston: for the record, never did say you were a pacifist wimp. Just took a question you posed here and ran with it, used it as a talking point hopefully pertinent to this thread.


----------



## Max (Sep 26, 2002)

It's interesting, this thread. In some ways it hearkens back to old-world ways of thinking. Here some of us are, pointing to the wisdom of establishing a fortress North America - staging certain points of entry and guarding against all the others being penetrated, etc. I have to wonder how effective all of this will be in our brave new world of bio-contagion (whether natural, via pandemics like an ostensibly long-overdue superflu, or deliberately engineered bio-weapons) and the always-there possibility of nuclear exchange... how many thousands of warheads are there still out there loose in the world?

In the old days, people could only invade North America from either within - being here in the first place - or without, via sailing vessels/armadas. Nowadays, thanks to jet travel and modern communication dependencies, all sorts of weird stuff can sabotage us. Viruses can arrive from afar in a matter of hours. Biological ones on jets, software ones via the net. Backpack nukes can be transported into our major urban areas by infiltrating visitors who appear as harmless as the next tourist. Water supplies can be contaminated. Legendary symbols of power and commerce can be destroyed in a matter of hours.

Much as it may look like it, I'm hardly trying to make a case for wide-spread paranoia here - rather, I just wonder if we won't one day regard the notion of continental defense as a rather quaint relic of an earlier, decidedly naive era.

I guess the other thing I hope for in future generations is a dawning awareness that it's not about continents and regions, resources and targets of acquisition - it's about one small planet being larger than any of us, bigger even than giving in to various national aspirations to take one's rightful turn at ruling the world. It's about that same small planet playing host to billions of species - not just that insistent, obnoxious nut-bar _**** sapiens_ - in a local galaxy where it appears pretty unlikely that other life exists. There is so much to marvel at here on our own blue marble, yet we tend to fall into the same traps of imperialism and expansion, conquest and consolidation. We appear to be so ready to play god even on our own planet - no other species matter but our own.

It would be a deliciously dark and rich comedy, were it not so fundamentally pathetic.


----------



## MACSPECTRUM (Oct 31, 2002)

I keep wondering who we are supposed to be defending ourselves against? Ok, so Denmark claimed an island in the Arctic. They planted their flag. We complained. Now we're talking to them.

Canada's territory (land and sea) are huge. We're the 3rd largest country in the world with about 30 million people concentrated in less than 5% of the land mass. We could have the military might of the U.S. and our country would still be hard to defend. We could look at the "nuclear" option. Does anyone really want to go there?

It's a right wing wet dream to think that Canada can defend itself in a traditional military way.

How many subs would we need to patrol the northwest channel and just what would we do if we caught a non-Canadian ship or sub in those waters? Fire upon them?

Subs already patrol beneath the poral ice cap. They have been doing this for decades. Foreign surface vessels have been "caught" traversing the passage. They claim it's "international waters." Not much we can do except embarass them by publishing photos. Maybe my cat can give them a mean hissing.

Canada needs to curry [sic?] international favour so that in case of a serious military action against Canada, we could depend on international assistance.

I realize that statement will anger many eager to believe that we can defend our territory with military force, but reality shows otherwise.

With natural resources becoming more and more valued (oil, water) we may one day be forced into an uncomfortable "arrangement."

That's just the reality of geo-politics.

More money for the military along with a new mission of Search and Rescue (SAR) would serve Canada best. We need long range aircraft, helicopters and ways of deliverying troops anywhere in Canada within 24 hours.

Forest fires, floods, storms. Those are the real enemies of the 21st century.
Denmark will wait.


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

I suspect that the issue is the nature of the spending.

I would think boondoogles like the subs are real negatives where as multi-use equipment like SAR and Coast Guard, fire fighting, disaster response would garner support.

Does the money get spent on a "high tech" frigate that may quickly become obsolete and whose primary purpose is military conflict of a major nature versus say 4 Coast Guard cutters whose prmary purpose is patrol and interdiction ( ie fishing/smuggling ) and only incidentally formal military activities.

HIgh tech fighters with expensive support or long range aircraft with multiple uses.

I do think the devil and the support level is in the details.

How much MORE does a military purposed helicopter with incidental SAR capacity cost over a SAR purposed with minor weaponry.

Canadian forces versus Canadian military....there's a difference and in resolving that I think lies the key to widespread support for renewed resources.

Certainly some of the billions from the energy windfall could find good use here but is it tanks/subs...fighter jets......or coast guard or SAR/fire fighting/emergency response that should get first call on the funds.

Making the re-equipping case acceptable to both the Canadian people and the Canadian forces is in my mind no easy task.


----------



## martman (May 5, 2005)

I absolutly oppose integrating our millitary with the US. How could one even propose this in the light of the Bush administration purposly lying to the UN and the American people, using false pretenses to start an illegal war in Iraq?
The US tried to drag us in and we (thank god) said no. How would we do this if our millitaries were integratred? The USA's current foreign policy is a mess and goes against all that makes Canada great.
Tight integration with the USA's millitary would likely turn us into international parriahs just like the US only they have much more power to deal with a world who thinks they are dangerous nutt than we do. Your proposal is a spit in the face of Lester Pearson.


----------



## martman (May 5, 2005)

MACSPECTRUM said:


> I keep wondering who we are supposed to be defending ourselves against?


Exactly. We don't need to spend more. We need to spend differently. Part of this is getting out of Afganistan. It is the USA's mess and we should not be cleaning it up for them.


----------



## Mugatu (Mar 31, 2005)

martman said:


> We don't need to spend more.


Try saying that to the men and women of the Canadian Armed Forces that are forced to use equipment that can, at best, be called antique.


----------



## Vandave (Feb 26, 2005)

martman said:


> Exactly. We don't need to spend more. We need to spend differently. Part of this is getting out of Afganistan. It is the USA's mess and we should not be cleaning it up for them.


I think we did the right thing in Afghanistan. This isn't just a mess that affects the US, it affects all western nations. The former government of Afghanistan allowed al Queda to have terrorist training camps in their country and harboured Bin Laden.

These same groups of people have considered attacks on Canada well before 911. For example, Rassam considered blowing up a Jewish neighbourhood in Montreal. This threat is real and Canada should do its part. I'm proud that we are.


----------



## Vandave (Feb 26, 2005)

martman said:


> I absolutly oppose integrating our millitary with the US. How could one even propose this in the light of the Bush administration purposly lying to the UN and the American people, using false pretenses to start an illegal war in Iraq?
> The US tried to drag us in and we (thank god) said no. How would we do this if our millitaries were integratred? The USA's current foreign policy is a mess and goes against all that makes Canada great.
> Tight integration with the USA's millitary would likely turn us into international parriahs just like the US only they have much more power to deal with a world who thinks they are dangerous nutt than we do. Your proposal is a spit in the face of Lester Pearson.


I think my use of the word 'integrate' has caused some confusion with my recommendation. I am not talking about complete integration, I am talking about taking on specialized roles. The US would still have the capability to carry out military action in the absense of Canadian troops. Should we have chosen to go to Iraq, our higher level of integration would serve both countries better than the present situation.

I am not advocating removing the political decision making role that Parliament makes in declaring war. I totally advocate Canadian sovereignty and I would not want Americans making our political decisions for us. So your point is taken, but this is not what I am suggesting. We wouldn't get dragged into things such as Iraq.

Is it really a spit in the face to a man who advocated the formation of NATO? He understood the concept of integrated armies.


----------



## martman (May 5, 2005)

Vandave said:


> I think we did the right thing in Afghanistan.


This is where we dissagree. The invasion of Afganistan was supposedly in retaliation for 9-11. Less than 4000 were killed in the attacks on 9-11.
According to the best estimates I could find more than 12,000 Afganis have died from the Afgan war.
Afganistan's problem will not go away and the USA is NOT fixing them. Eventually the US (like USSR) will leave and nothing will have changed except the hatred of the USA will be for more ingrained than it was before the war and the amount of herion produced in the region will stay at pre-Taliban rates if not greater.

I'd love to see a better Afgan society for its peoples but honestly I see no indication of this happening.
Ultimatly like in Iraq I expect that the the grandiose objectives will be tossed out the window and we will leave having accomplished only pissing more people off. Remember how Iraq was going to have a secular gov't and that a fundamentalist islamst gov't was not going to happen? I hope you didn't believe that BS when it was being brandied about.


----------



## Mugatu (Mar 31, 2005)

I agree with Vandave on this one. It's better that we are there, trying to help, giving the people of Afghanistan at least some sort of choice for their future. Canada excels at these types of missions. If we could send out more peace keepers (at the behest of the UN) by doubling our military spending, then I say we should.


----------



## Beej (Sep 10, 2005)

I don't think nothing was an option in Afghanistan, considering how closely tied together the government, terrorism and repression were. Having said that, success is highly uncertain but I give it a better chance than Iraq based purely on 'gut' with little evidence to back me up.


----------



## MacNutt (Jan 16, 2002)

Afghanistan, Shmafganistan...

The simple fact here is that we Candians seem to like to project our Candian Forces into ragged areas that need some serious peacekeeping.

We do this on a regular basis.

But..at least under the Federal liberals...we do NOT think that the Canadian Armed Forces should actually have any forces to actually project. Or to have any real protection from whatever might be flung at them in these disturbed areas of the planet.

Better that our brave soldiers should simply be deployed with a smile and a shrug and alomost nothing else when we put them in harm's way.

Give them antique helicopters that fall out of the air and kill or maim everyone onboard. On a regular basis...

Give them submarines that are dysfunctional and useless and are a bigger danger to the brave men who serve on them than to anyone else...

Give them deep green "camoflage" that stands out like a sore thumb in a sand-colored desert envirionment. Make them TARGETS!!

Give them mobile jeep-type vehicles that quit running at almost any time and will fold up like tinfoil when they are attacked by anything larger than a 22 caliber weapon. Just to keep them on their TOES!

And then, on top of all of THAT....starve their families back home into visiting the local food banks in order to make ends meet. Because the standard Canadian Forces weekly salary...even when they are in harm's way...is far less than it takes for a normal family to live!

Give em that. And imagine that it is ENOUGH!!

Yeah...that should work.

What a JOKE!! What a sad F*CKING JOKE!!!


----------



## Vandave (Feb 26, 2005)

martman said:


> This is where we dissagree. The invasion of Afganistan was supposedly in retaliation for 9-11. Less than 4000 were killed in the attacks on 9-11.
> According to the best estimates I could find more than 12,000 Afganis have died from the Afgan war.


Yes, it was in done in retaliation after 911 because Bin Laden organized the attack and was being sheltered by the Taliban, which was the government of Afghanistan.

Would you rather we do nothing in retaliation and just roll over and take it?

The Americans, Canadians and everybody else do everything they can to avoid civilian casualities.


----------



## da_jonesy (Jun 26, 2003)

Vandave said:


> Yes, it was in done in retaliation after 911 because Bin Laden organized the attack and was being sheltered by the Taliban, which was the government of Afghanistan.
> 
> Would you rather we do nothing in retaliation and just roll over and take it?
> 
> The Americans, Canadians and everybody else do everything they can to avoid civilian casualities.


That argument doesn't wash...

By your logic then England would have been justified in attacking the US because of the support given to the IRA by Irish Americans in the NorthEast. 

or the US attacking China in the 1960's for their support of the North Vietnamese during the Vietnam war.


----------



## MACSPECTRUM (Oct 31, 2002)

> By your logic then England would have been justified in attacking the US because of the support given to the IRA by Irish Americans in the NorthEast.
> 
> or the US attacking China in the 1960's for their support of the North Vietnamese during the Vietnam war.


exactly


----------



## Vandave (Feb 26, 2005)

da_jonesy said:


> That argument doesn't wash...
> 
> By your logic then England would have been justified in attacking the US because of the support given to the IRA by Irish Americans in the NorthEast.
> 
> or the US attacking China in the 1960's for their support of the North Vietnamese during the Vietnam war.


The support of the IRA by Irish Americans was not representative of the US government. The Taliban were harbouring al Queda. The Taliban would not hand bin Laden over to the US. The Taliban allowed terrorist training camps to be constructed. I see no parallel here.

Yes, the US could have attacked China during Vietnam but they didn't want to expand the war into a World War. The battlefield was for Vietnam, not China. If you are trying to create democracy in Vietnam, that's where you'll fight the war.


----------



## Beej (Sep 10, 2005)

da_jonesy said:


> That argument doesn't wash...
> 
> By your logic then England would have been justified in attacking the US because of the support given to the IRA by Irish Americans in the NorthEast.
> 
> or the US attacking China in the 1960's for their support of the North Vietnamese during the Vietnam war.


 Yes, the argument does wash.
1) Different administrations with different philosophies
2) Not clamping down on IRA funding versus active help and support is different, the U.S. didn't attack every nation that had been allowing terrorist funding
3) Supporting an opposing side in a foreign country? Did China attack the U.S. itself?


----------



## MACSPECTRUM (Oct 31, 2002)

> The support of the IRA by Irish Americans was not representative of the US government.


I believe someone said; "You're either with us or against us."


----------



## da_jonesy (Jun 26, 2003)

Vandave said:


> The support of the IRA by Irish Americans was not representative of the US government. The Taliban were harbouring al Queda. The Taliban would not hand bin Laden over to the US. The Taliban allowed terrorist training camps to be constructed. I see no parallel here.


If you see no parallel then you are wearing a blindfold. 



> In 1969, as TV images of Catholics being attacked were beamed back to Irish Catholic enclaves in Boston and New York, hats were literally passed around pubs from Southie to Woodside in Queens. Fundraising for the IRA, or at least for IRA prisoners, peaked whenever the British were seen to do something outrageous, such as when British soldiers shot 14 civil rights marchers dead on Bloody Sunday in 1972 or in 1981 when Margaret Thatcher allowed the hunger strikers to die.


There is an absolute parallel here and I might add that how many of the Sept 11th suicide bombers were Afgani? Please tell me? Were they funded by Afghanistan?

Give your head a shake, and get that blindfold off.


----------



## Vandave (Feb 26, 2005)

MACSPECTRUM said:


> I believe someone said; "You're either with us or against us."


Just because Bush is an idiot and sees the world in black and white does not mean we shouldn't do the right thing.

I could find a Churchill quote about Stalin on this subject, but I think you know where I am going with this. Sometimes you have to make deals with people you don't like to accomplish good.


----------



## Vandave (Feb 26, 2005)

da_jonesy said:


> If you see no parallel then you are wearing a blindfold.


How many terrorist trainings camps operate freely in Saudi Arabia? Answer: None.

Does the Saudii government support terrorism? Answer: No

Why would you expect the US to attack Saudi Arabia then?

The Taliban allowed al Queda to operate freely in their country. The Taliban harboured terrorists that planned 911.The Taliban were the GOVERNMENT of Afghanistan. Seems reasonable to declare war on these people.

Please explain this parallel you speak of.

So in your mind, Britain should have declared war on Boston because some of their citizens contributed to the IRA. The US government did not support the actions of these individuals.


----------



## da_jonesy (Jun 26, 2003)

Vandave said:


> How many terrorist trainings camps operate freely in Saudi Arabia? Answer: None.


Not exactly correct and you know it. It is well known and well documented that many terrorist (I use this term loosely) and terrorist support support groups operate out of Saudi Arabia. 

15 of the hijackers were from Saudi Arabia, trained there (amongst other places) and funded ultimately from there. 



Vandave said:


> Does the Saudii government support terrorism? Answer: No


Really? Care to change your answer? Talk to some of our Jewish friends and they will tell you something a little bit different.

The Saudi Government never supported the PLO or Hezbolah? Think again.



Vandave said:


> Why would you expect the US to attack Saudi Arabia then?
> 
> The Taliban allowed al Queda to operate freely in their country. The Taliban harboured terrorists that planned 911.The Taliban were the GOVERNMENT of Afghanistan. Seems reasonable to declare war on these people.


This is typical mid 20th century level thinking... justifying a typical mid 20th century reaction by the US. In lieu of an actual state to attack the americans picked on nobody cared if they did... Afghanistan.

Don't get me wrong, I disliked the Taliban (Taliban Destroying Buddhist Statues )long before the US turned them into the evil media mob that they were. That all being said... Yeah the Taliban supported Al Queda, however there is little evidence to point to the Taliban supporting or funding the Sept 11th.

We even know that the US Government was working with the Taliban in Afghanistan prior to 9/11 on various oil pipeline projects.

Afghanistan provided a convenient way of not embarrassing the Saudi government who cannot keep control of their own disgruntled population.



Vandave said:


> Please explain this parallel you speak of.


How much more simple do I have to make it?

Funds and arms from the US make way to the IRA. The IRA blow up the British. 

Funds and arms come from Afganistan (well the funds really came from Saudi Arabia) and make their way to Al Queda. Al Queda blow up the Americans.



Vandave said:


> So in your mind, Britain should have declared war on Boston because some of their citizens contributed to the IRA. The US government did not support the actions of these individuals.


No... In your mind, by your logic that has to be a perfectly legitimate course of action. 

In my mind, the nature of global society and culture goes way beyond borders drawn on an 19th century map. The problem with your view (and the view of the current administration) is that you think this struggle is black and white and it is not.


----------



## MACSPECTRUM (Oct 31, 2002)

Vandave said:


> Just because Bush is an idiot and sees the world in black and white does not mean we shouldn't do the right thing.
> 
> I could find a Churchill quote about Stalin on this subject, but I think you know where I am going with this. Sometimes you have to make deals with people you don't like to accomplish good.


You mean like Rumsfeld and Bush 1 making an ally of Saddam Hussein and the same Saddam is on trial?

That kind of "deal?"

When will geo-politicians learn that the "enemy of enemy is my friend" is a flawed foreing policy.

Usama bin Laden comes to mind. How'd that work out?


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

Having recently read *Ghost Wars: The Secret History of the CIA, Afghanistan & Bin Laden * recently about the only thing one is left with is the immense complexity of the situation that Afghanistan has found itself at the centre of again.

The complicity of ALL the major players in the events leading up to 9/11, including American, Saudi, Pakistani, Russian and Indian foreign policies ....many of which were operating at odds with with their stated public policies.

AND several if not all of the above had independent agencies and enormous private funding ( Saudi Charities ) completely at odds with their own nation and with departments ( notably State Dept and CIA and Pakistani Gov and Pakistani Security agency )

Tangled is far too simple a description- Gordian Knot level perhaps......and the bones have not yet stopped tumbling foretelling the future outcome.

The Taliban had many opportunities presented to them by the Saudis, the Pakistanis and the US to defang Bin Laden and passed on them.

If anything might be "justified" - the US response to the 9/11 attack might be, given the effort previously to bring Bin Laden out from under the Taliban's protection.
They actually could have killed Bin Laden a couple of times prior to 9/11 but could not be sure of no collateral casualties.

One of the eerie moments in the book comes as the key players in Washington are watching bin Laden walking with one of his wives....real time...from an unarmed Predator spy vehicle. I mean they can see the guy from Washington....how spooky is that 

But would not pull the trigger on the cruise missiles.

Tensions and battle lines go back centuries ( literally and in full force ) in Afghanistan and overlap to surrounding nations and peoples.
Arms poured in in inconceivable numbers - (arms the US is still trying to mop up in the case of the Stinger missiles ) from a variety of sources.

Pakistan's role in this as well as Saudi Arabia's is far from clear and tensions about fundamentalist forces in both govs and populace muddied the picture immensely.....still does.

It IS unstable, it WAS unstable...perhaps for millenia in the region - it is MORE unstable and uncontrollable now with the Iraq situation.

That was the fear of so many world wise diplomats and Arab Street experts who warned the US so strongly against the folly of attacking Iraq.
They look very prescient.

Solutions??/....well if there have been none for a few thousand years...just what should we expect with several billion crowding against the edges of the Afghan border, a devastated country with no infrastructure left......and arms and oil and water shortages in the deadly mix. 

More of the same violence?? for sure.........containable??.....who the hell knows 

••••

BTW the book is excellent in detailing the growth of Bin Laden himself as a radical, his support from the US in the Afghan effort against the USSR and then the turn about to Bin Laden's fatwa against the US.


----------



## Vandave (Feb 26, 2005)

da_jonesy said:


> That all being said... Yeah the Taliban supported Al Queda, however there is little evidence to point to the Taliban supporting or funding the Sept 11th.


And the US gave the Taliban a choice... hand over bin Laden or we will take him by force and overthrow you as well.

Do you really think the Taliban were not complicit with al Qaeda and their objectives? Omar and bin Laden were good friends and met regularly. By this point, bin Laden's objectives, idiology and history were well known. 

Do you think it was a coincidence Massood (leader of the Northern Alliance) was assasinated on September 10th?


----------



## da_jonesy (Jun 26, 2003)

Vandave said:


> And the US gave the Taliban a choice... hand over bin Laden or we will take him by force and overthrow you as well.
> 
> Do you really think the Taliban were not complicit with al Qaeda and their objectives? Omar and bin Laden were good friends and met regularly. By this point, bin Laden's objectives, idiology and history were well known.


And the same goes for the IRA... The US government knew their objectives, idiology and history.



Vandave said:


> Do you think it was a coincidence Massood (leader of the Northern Alliance) was assasinated on September 10th?


Probably not but it has nothing to do with my orginal argument... stick to the point.


----------



## MACSPECTRUM (Oct 31, 2002)

Vandave said:


> Just because Bush is an idiot and sees the world in black and white does not mean we shouldn't do the right thing.
> 
> I could find a Churchill quote about Stalin on this subject, but I think you know where I am going with this. Sometimes you have to make deals with people you don't like to accomplish good.


This "idot" also lied to the world about why he invaded Iraq and now the U.S. has almost 2 thousand dead and thousands wounded.
Oh, and tens of thousands of dead Iraqis too.

Wait, it gets better.
The U.S. governmental investigation found NO EVIDENCE that Iraq was involved in 9/11.

And I'm still waitng for WMD #1 to be found as I am sure Hans Blix is waiting too.


----------



## Vandave (Feb 26, 2005)

da_jonesy said:


> And the same goes for the IRA... The US government knew their objectives, idiology and history.


Ya, but the US government never sponsored this. The Taliban sponsored terror training camps and were very intimate with Bin Laden. The US government had nothing to do with the IRA. 



da_jonesy said:


> Probably not but it has nothing to do with my orginal argument... stick to the point.


You made the statement that the Taliban had nothing to do with 911 or the planning. I doubt it was just al Qaeda that carried that operation out. You would need mostly native Afghanis to get that close to Massood.


----------



## da_jonesy (Jun 26, 2003)

Vandave said:


> Ya, but the US government never sponsored this. The Taliban sponsored terror training camps and were very intimate with Bin Laden. The US government had nothing to do with the IRA.
> 
> 
> 
> You made the statement that the Taliban had nothing to do with 911 or the planning. I doubt it was just al Qaeda that carried that operation out. You would need mostly native Afghanis to get that close to Massood.


But in both cases Afganistan had nothing to do with 9/11 from a tactical, planning or financial support perspective.

But hey that's OK, they were convienient so drop a couple of JDAMs and 500lb bombs on them anyway.


----------



## Vandave (Feb 26, 2005)

MACSPECTRUM said:


> This "idot" also lied to the world about why he invaded Iraq and now the U.S. has almost 2 thousand dead and thousands wounded.
> Oh, and tens of thousands of dead Iraqis too.
> 
> Wait, it gets better.
> ...


I totally agree. 

He was wrong on Iraq, but he was right on Afghanistan. The fight in Afghanistan is for the security of all western nations. Iraq was not a terrorist state nor did they have links to al Qaeda (based on publically available info). Nor were they a threat to any country as they were contained.

I bet Saddam still kept most of his biological weapons, such as Anthrax. All you have to do is store it in a Petrie dish and keep it in a freezer. It is too easy to store for him to have thrown these weapons away. There are probably 10 million freezers in Iraq. You would never be able to find such a small amount. But.... the US made out that he was mass producing the damn stuff and had nuclear and other weapons. Clearly that wasn't the case.


----------



## MACSPECTRUM (Oct 31, 2002)

the u.s. is only second to Russia when it comes to stores of biological weapons, nevermind nuclear (or is the nucular?) weapons
oh, and which country was the only one in history to use a nuclear weapon (twice)?
let me see......oh, the U.S.

kinda like letting foxes tell chickens how to run the coop, eh?


----------



## Beej (Sep 10, 2005)

MACSPECTRUM said:


> the u.s. is only second to Russia when it comes to stores of biological weapons, nevermind nuclear (or is the nucular?) weapons
> oh, and which country was the only one in history to use a nuclear weapon (twice)?
> let me see......oh, the U.S.
> 
> kinda like letting foxes tell chickens how to run the coop, eh?


 What are you getting at here? Vague moral and/or responsibility comparisons? I'm probably reading too much into your post, but are you suggesting that the U.S. having biological and nuclear weapons (and having used nukes) makes them unsuitable to tell Iraq (and Iran?) what to do with theirs, if they had them or are developing them?


----------

