Canada all but undefended

[Guest]

I found this article fascinating, and he is VERY close to the mark.

quote:

---

Canada's military has withered so thoroughly the country is practically defenceless, according to a study released yesterday by the C.D. Howe Institute.

"Whether Canadians realize it or not, Canada is now all but undefended at a time of danger," Dr. Jack Granatstein writes for the institute.

Dr. Granatstein is a noted York University historian and chairman of the Council for Canadian Security in the 21st Century, a non-partisan group based in Calgary that advocates a greater government emphasis on defence.

However, Dr. Granatstein argues that the real threat posed by the deterioration of Canada's army, navy and air force is not from foreign invaders or terrorists, but from the United States.

He said Canada's military impotence threatens Canadian sovereignty because it invites the U.S. to take steps to defend itself against terrorist attacks, even to the point of sending troops onto Canadian soil.

"Although terrorism poses a real threat, it is not the most serious crisis," he wrote. "The danger lies in wearing blinkers about the United States at a time it is in a vengeful, anxious mood."

"The Chr├®tien government seems either oblivious to the danger or else it has given up."

Dr. Granatstein said it is even possible - if Canada does not co-operate with Washington's continental security plans - that the Americans could seal the Canada-U.S. border and deploy their armed forces in our territory if they felt it necessary.

"The United States is deadly serious about homeland defence, and only utterly foolish Canadians can ignore this concern," he wrote. "The Americans will act - alone if necessary."

Dr. Granatstein argues Canada's underfunded military might already have cost us heavily.

"The Americans know we do not pull our weight," he writes. "And although policymakers usually deny the existence of linkage between and among issues, the lamentable condition of the Canadian Forces may have something to do with our inability to get the Bush White House to take a positive interest in Canada's softwood lumber difficulties or U.S. attacks against our Wheat Board."

Dr. Granatstein writes in his study that Canada must address U.S. defence initiatives such as the missile defence shield or the proposed Northern Command if it wishes to have some say in continental defence matters.

To do that, he says the Canadian Forces must be rebuilt.

"Canadians thus have the choice of standing back and allowing the Americans to plan for the protection of Canadian territory or of participating in the decisions," he writes.

"Do we want some consultation or none on matters that concern Canada's security every bit as much as the United States'?"

"A weak Canadian military means that we must rely on the United States for homeland defence and defence against external threats ... If Canada maintains a credible military, we will have a voice and options that weakness cannot provide."

Dr. Granatstein outlines in detail the woes that have befallen the Canadian military under successive governments since the 1960s. He said army units are operating at roughly half-strength, warships are kept in dock for want of trained sailors to run them and the air force is short of pilots and still years away from replacing its 1960s-vintage Sea King helicopters.

"Without a change in its prospects and substantially more funding - a defence review is set to begin in late spring 2002, and many see it as the last chance for the Canadian Forces - we must expect resignations among the chiefs," he writes.

The study calls for a cash infusion of $2.5-billion in addition to the $12-billion now spent on defence, and another $10-billion for at least the next five years.

Canada spends US$265 per capita on defence, less than half the NATO average, it said.

Dr. Granatstein's study is the latest in a series of papers outlining what most analysts call a crisis in the Canadian military.

A report for the Conference of Defence Associations last month concluded the Canadian Forces are 15 years away from "mass extinction" as a capable fighting force unless the government invests billions in new equipment.

The report by Brian Macdonald, president of the Atlantic Council, which promotes Canada's role in NATO, said most military equipment now in service will ''rust out'' by 2015.

In March, a Senate committee recommended $4-billion more be spent on defence.

This month the federal Auditor-General said the military faced a critical shortage in key occupations. Sheila Fraser said the personnel shortages could take 30 years to fix.

And last week, the Liberal-dominated Commons defence committee said the Canadian Forces are critically underfunded and need an $18-billion infusion in order to avoid massive troop burnout.

---

This is what happens when a socialist government depends on a capitalist society for it's defense. Could backfire BIG TIME!!

[Epsilon 5]

1 - Canada has no enemies

2 - We prefer diplomacy to army

3 - We are not obsessed with military strength.

4 - We spend money elsewhere, somewhere more useful.

I know our country wants to cooperate in the defense stuff with the United States. We just don't see the point of infusing billions that could be used to reduce the debt, repairs roads, be sent to the provinces, to reduce taxes.

Why do you think the vice-prime-miniter is the finance minister, instead of the defense minister? (or secretary...)

And since when the respect of a country is measured by the size of the military?

quote:

---

the lamentable condition of the Canadian Forces may have something to do with our inability to get the Bush White House to take a positive interest in Canada's softwood lumber difficulties or U.S. attacks against our Wheat Board."

---

Yeah right. We signed for a free trade treaty I can't remember how many years ago. But since Canada's woodcutters and farmers use more advanced techniques, that our forests / soils are bigger and of better quality, and that the personnel employed is of higher caliber, the United States need to go against the treaty and "protect" their industries from international competition.

And btw, we are NOT a socialistic government, we are a capitalistic government bent on socialism. It's called liberalism

[ 06-12-2002, 22:40: Message edited by: Epsilon 5 ]

[Guest Remo Williams]

LOL! Sounds like you have issues with what your own countrymen and goverment are saying about your military E5. That article was written by a Canadian not an American.

I'm sure they know Canada don't have any enemies right now. We in the states do though because of our position in the world community. So I believe what their worried about is our enemies using Canadian territory to try and get at us. Which we would never stand for.

[Supreme Cmdr]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Remo Williams:

We in the states do though because of our position in the world community. So I believe what their worried about is our enemies using Canadian territory to try and get at us. Which we would never stand for.

---

Correct. And thats what that article also aludes to.

The fact is, with American borders getting tighter (since 9/11), terrorists will most definitely try to use either Mexico or Canada, as a point of entry. At least for those who aren't already in the country.

[Lotharr]

This is the way I see it.

Canada is next to us and as such they have a certain level of neighborly commitment. They need to support our efforts in some area's. However trying to be lil' America is the wrong call.

If they are a part of NATO they have to be ready to field a force on NATO missions and honor their agreement.

How they handle their military is not the way we handle ours because of international positions.

However , being next to the world's superpower means they are inherently defended and a part of our national defense. We build the weapons, we have the best standing Army and we claim to have beliefs in fair play and the moral right to lead, so we take the front in world affairs exposing us to backlash. So why would Canada need a large Army? They don't have this role. No country in this world can stand alone against our military power. The guy in the article talks about negotiating from a position of weakness...how could any country really be strong against us? But we are allies so the point is moot.

Military buildup is ridicules for a lot of countries. We share a treaty and we are all (supposed) to work together when the need arises. Leaving all to focus on domestic or economic issues. Not my country....we want the BIG stick...so be it.

So this means Canada doesn't need a large army to fight in a conventional war. If this scenario ever materializes Canada, and everyone else, would have to build anyway. Except China I guess. My point is that an Army should not be used to police boarders and prevent terrorists from getting in. That is for civil agencies and law enforcement groups that utilize investigators and researchers. Hire local, train well, and employ them to defend the soft civil targets have corporations float the bill. Make it mandatory. Keep the Army on track with the objective of winning conventional wars.

The Armed forces of a country is there to fight and win wars. However we are in a Presidential war on terror and we employ our military in a civil defense capacity. Untimely degrading our war fighting ability by spasm response to covering a huge underbelly....one that can't be covered ultimately.

So to expect Canada to do what we do is unrealistic. They don't have the enemies we do because of the policies they employ. They should support our efforts to defend innocent lives but maybe we should fund these efforts. They aren't the targets….we are.

[Guest]

Canada is incapable of defending itself, against anyone. A troop of boy scouts could take over that country, it's pitiful.

Every country has the obligation to supply it's own defense, a soveriegn country should not expect to be defended by another country, just because we share a border does not give Canada the right to EXPECT us to defend her. She needs to be capable of defending herslef as well.

She is weak, and if the time comes where we must go north to defend our interests because canada is incapable of doing so, then we should have the right to annex whatever territory that we are forced to defend.

They can't do it, we will, that is what this man is saying as far as weakness is concerned. If we are forced to go into Canada to take care of things, Canada will get the shock of it's life when we demand payment for those services.

And we should if that occurs, if we have to defend Canada, THEY should have to pay for it.

[Kevin Trotter]

Here we go again. It's not enough that we now spend every dime possible on winning an umwinnable war,I mean all the technology ,intelligence and experience in the world cannot stop a lone nut from killing himself and taking some people with him,now we have to have Canada in on the deal.

Ever wonder why our elderly have to band together and ride to Canada to buy prescrition medication? Because apparently the Canadian government cares more about people than it does about defense contracts , lobbyist and opportunistic politicians.

We are so worried about threats from beyond our borders we ignore the threats that exist in our own country. Did anyone ever stop to think that if our priorties were more reflective of the needs of the people and not large corporations getting fat of of government contracts we wouldn't be in this mess? Our financial interest in Saudi Arabia allow us to decry terrorism on one hand and prop up a regime that supports terrorist with the other. I won't even go into the long standing relationship between the Bush and Bin Laden families.

The bottom line is as a member of NATO and as an ally in WWII Canada has always done thier share. Would we benefit from them taking a higher profile defense wise? probably yes. The better question is how would that benefit Canada? Is it in thier best interest to do so. Due to thier position in the world Canada isn't a target for this enemy we face. They don't seem to have a history of supporting the likes of Manuel Noriega, Saddam Hussien and the current thugs being ousted in Afghanastan and then having to defend themselves from weapons bought with thier tax payer's money.

While it is paramount that we protect our borders it is OUR borders that need protecting.

Maybe we should be as concerned that we don't continue to support policies that aid in producing homegrown filth like Jose Padilla.

This isn't South Park so don't "Blame Canada"

[Guest]

Yes, indeed, the elderly here in the US go north for their prescriptions, but the elderly in Canada come to the US for their medical care.

It doesn't matter that Canada is almost bankrupt because of it's so called caring for the people.

It's socialist policies and "caring" are destroying it and it's economy.

The government in the US is not allowed to "take care" of you, but they do it anyway, and are destroying this country in the process.

If you can't take care of yourself, don't get some politician to put a gun to my head and reach into my wallet to take care of you. I can take care of myself, why can't you?

[Kevin Trotter]

Since you insist on replying to any post you disagree with by personalizing attacks and questioning peoples morality , patriotism ,intelligence or self reliance I must insist on respondin to you as I would any bully.

If you are ever in my neck of the woods perhaps we should meet face to face so I can "express"

to you just how well I can take care of myself

[Guest Remo Williams]

Ya right bannon, your the one that went off topic. Were in the article does it talk about medical care for all. It doesn't Its about Canada's military. Invitations like you extented will get you banned around here and rightly so.

[ 06-13-2002, 14:31: Message edited by: Remo Williams ]

[Lotharr]

Because at this particular time you are living well. This does not mean you will continue to do so. If and when, you or your kids....who are hard working and responsible....get canned and can't find a job to save your life you'll wonder where the government fits into the picture.

Maybe you don't have a corporate job that will drop you in a heart beat....if only stuff a few more bucks in someone's pockets that are fat already....but others have.

Entrepreneurs are even more vulnerable to the sweeping tide of the market.

Your attitude about not wanting to help fellow citizens is one that saturates our culture. It is also, in my opinion, why terrorists can and do infiltrate (with relative ease) a society bent on collective self interest.

Not all…we have very concerned and motivated people out there trying to make a difference….but there are too many that could really care less about the plight of others. It is sad. But perhaps it will change when things don’t keep going their way….

Yep....no matter what your personal perception is about the Constitution....people make societies to gain the strength of unity and reap the mutual gain as a collective. The vast majority of people will fall on hard times. But not everyone has the social or family net to catch them when they fall. People want this. Not all....not the ones who can afford the vote....they probably will never have this concern.....but they get to make decisions that have a serious effect on policy...bizarre...

But that's just my two cents.

[Guest]

I just got a new job, I was unemployed for 6 months, I was broke and I was desperate. But because I will not allow the government to have a say in my life, I like my freedom, thank you very much. I did what I had to do to make ends meet and feed my children and make my house payments.

That meant, building webpages, mowing lawns, fixing peoples computers and at the same time, applying for every job I could find.

I had the wherwithal to work my butt off to make ends meet, I didn't sit on my ass and wait for mommy government to come to my rescue.

[Kevin Trotter]

The point about medical care was to illustrate how our priorties affect the our standing as a world leader. I find it curiuos that if one doesn't share a certain political philosophy

it's okay to berate them , question their manhood

etc..and then hide behind rules regarding posts.

Don't be suprised if you call someone out and they have the nerve to respond .

Isn't it possible to disagree with some one without insulting them? Apparently not if that person is a progressive or liberal,we appear to fair game. Don't ever assume liberal (at least in my case ) means weak or frightened. I can assure you I am neither.

As to my invitation,that was only over the line if you wish to interpret it that way. I simply implied it is easier to insult someone who isn't right in front of you. If you are offended my apologies. But please don't pretend that Jag's post wasn't provacative. It was and I was personally offended. This isn't the first time someone has complained and asked for the tone of the rhetoric to be less strident.

And lastly the only Canadian who responded to the original thread seemed to think it was hogwash!

[Guest]

Bannon,

that post was not "aimed" at you so to speak, your offense was actually rather amusing, because offense is taken usually when one feels guilt.

There was no offense meant, but it is fascinating that you took it as such.

I will not allow the government to encroach upon my freedom, and that is what it is when the government begins their socialistic leanings, such as universal healthcare. Your medical choices disapear, my freedom to get healthcare where I want disapears, therefore my freedom disapears.

I am willing to be responsible for my healthcare, for my defense, for my childrens education. These are CHOICES I have made, because I have the freedom from government intervention to do that. You on the other hand wish to take that freedom of choice away from me, by forcing me to do what the government decides is best for me.

I think that I am the one that knows what is best for me, don't you?

With freedom comes responsibility, I like that responsibility, because it means that I am free. And I am NOT willing to give up my freedom to get rid of your guilt. Or because you or anyone else is willing to give that freedom and responsiblity to some government bureaucrat. You may wish to, but I do not, and the problem with you being willing to is that the government then puts a gun to my head and forces me to pay for that new program, that allows you and others to not be responsible for yourselves anymore because momma government will take care of you.

I'll keep my freedom and I will take care of myself, thank you very much. I would also like the choice of keeping or giving my money as I see fit, and not have a gun to my head and a hand in my wallet to rid you of your social guilt.

And Lothar.

quote:

---

Your attitude about not wanting to help fellow citizens is one that saturates our culture. It is also, in my opinion, why terrorists can and do infiltrate (with relative ease) a society bent on collective self interest

---

That offends me, I care about my fellow human being, I care that they are free to have choices, I care that they are free to defend themselves, I care that they have the education and the motivation to better themselves and create for themselves what this country has in abundance, if you are willing to work hard enough for it.

If the government didn't take 50% of my money before I get it, I would be more then willing to share with those less fortunate, but that would be my choice. Right now I do not have that choice, the government has a gun to my head and a hand in my wallet, "forcing" me to care about others. Well, when I have that freedom of choice back, then I will care about others and "share" my wealth, but until then, I am going to hang onto every little pennie that the government "Allows" me to keep.

[ 06-13-2002, 15:06: Message edited by: Jaguar ]

[Lotharr]

quote:

---

"The Americans know we do not pull our weight," he writes. "And although policymakers usually deny the existence of linkage between and among issues, the lamentable condition of the Canadian Forces may have something to do with our inability to get the Bush White House to take a positive interest in Canada's softwood lumber difficulties or U.S. attacks against our Wheat Board."

---

I think there is linkage in a lot of issues.....

I try to keep blunt statements and personal attacks separate....even if the two sometimes seem to overlap....

Better if you can just let it roll off and drive on....

EDIT AFTER POST

I was writing this as you posted your response....and a good one at that.....I think some people need a good butt kickin' from some "wus liberal" so they can put some ideas into terms they can understand

[ 06-13-2002, 15:13: Message edited by: Lotharr ]

[Guest Remo Williams]

Canada should have a stronger well equiped military. Not to compete with the United States but to defend their country from a possible terrorist insurgent set on attacking the United states.

Then there would be no need to send US forces into Canada for homeland defence. This would allow the US to expand our war against these terrorist to the countries that they call home. Such as Iran, Syria, Iraq, The west bank, and Lebanon to name a few. In turn preventing future attacks against the US and our allies.

[ 06-13-2002, 16:04: Message edited by: Remo Williams ]

[Epsilon 5]

quote:

---

It doesn't matter that Canada is almost bankrupt because of it's so called caring for the people.

---

Excuse me?? Since when Canada is going bankrupt? We have one of the world's best economy, and the federal debt per capita is much lower in Canada than in the United States.

A while ago I calculated that in canada we have about a 10900usd citizen debt share, while in the US it's about 21000usd per citizen. If you need my sources I could get them.

And by the way, it's not the military that will stop terrorists from crossing borders. Not like if they rode tanks or jet plane? And Canada DOES have an army, althought basic, we do have one. It's getting thinner because it has little use. Canada has almost always helped in peacekeeping operations. In Bosnia our people would keep the areas swepped by the US army under control, an even then we were forced to fight at times. We, from time to time, contribute in navy operations by sending a few of our ships, mostly frigates.

To help counter terrorism, we need better security, better police. The government already spent nearly a billion on the subject, and enacted a raise of 24cnd on airport tax to pay it. People are mad, you can understand it. The government almost passed a law that could seal areas under military control before there is definite evidence of a terrorist threat. It didn't worked (it was unconstitutionnal), but you can't say they did't tried.

And why should we build a large army? Would still be useless. The size of the USA army would still overshadow ours, and it would never be enough.

quote:

---

A troop of boy scouts could take over that country, it's pitiful.

---

Yeah right. Then why did the american generals called our regiments sent in Afganistan "a great asset"? We may have less people, they are still very well trained.

quote:

---

then we should have the right to annex whatever territory that we are forced to defend.

---

Last I remember, the United states already have air-force bases scatted in some parts of Canada, mostly the artic regions, since the cold-war.

quote:

---

And we should if that occurs, if we have to defend Canada, THEY should have to pay for it.

---

We wouldn't need to. Tell me, who's United States' biggest economical partner? If ever the US had to stop dealing with us (for whatever reason), you'd be in trouble.

quote:

---

The bottom line is as a member of NATO and as an ally in WWII Canada has always done thier share.

---

True. While The US was invading 3 beaches of Normandy, we had our own, as much as Britain has its own beach to invade. the rest of the time, we were building planes, guns, tanks, ammo, etc for the Allies.

quote:

---

It's socialist policies and "caring" are destroying it and it's economy.

---

Not at all. Our economy is getting better, and while we still have debts, we don't have a budget in the red anymore. The United States still do, however.

[ 06-13-2002, 16:04: Message edited by: Epsilon 5 ]

[Guest]

You're funny EP5, they have drastically cut into the social programs up there. The waiting period for medical care is outragous, the taxes are insane, and business are leaving in droves.

It's interesting that you think that your country is NOT in trouble, because it very much is.

The fact is you need your own defense forces to protect your country, the Canadian government has depended on the US to defend you if you were ever invaded by a foriegn power, that is why your military is such a joke. Sure, you have some token troops to send out into the world, but it would take a good long time to build it up to a point where you could actually defend yourselves.

You will NEVER have to defend yourselves from the US, we're not interested in your debt or your socialist programs. You can keep them up north thank you very much. I pay enough in taxes already.

[Epsilon 5]

I edited my previous post 3-4 times.

quote:

---

You're funny EP5, they have drastically cut into the social programs up there. The waiting period for medical care is outragous, the taxes are insane, and business are leaving in droves.

---

Probably depends on the province, since health is provincial-related. But here, yes, we had a lot of cuts, but that's what you need to have a better ecnomy in the long-term. Yes waits for medical care takes alot of time, but that's because the government has been stupid enough to put 6000 nurses to early retirement. I must admit that they made an error. Businesses leaving? I don't see that. Alot of jobs were lost, but that's because of the recession and the techno bubble deflating, which affected the United States as much, if not more. The only big company I know left a part of the country is GM, but it'S only because they stopped manufacturing the Camaro/Firebird cars, and couldn't find anything else. Otherwise, alot of company actually like coming here (Quebec) because electricity cost very little, because of the safe climate (no hurricanes, no tornadoes, no earthquakes, no major floodings) and because the available personnel is of high-quality.

Is it me, or anything concerning Canada turns out economical, while anything about the United States turns out about the military and gun control? Probably just me.

[Guest]

quote:

---

Is it me, or anything concerning Canada turns out economical, while anything about the United States turns out about the military and gun control? Probably just me.

---

It's not your imagination!! LOL

[Lotharr]

quote:

---

Canada should have a stronger well equiped military. Not to compete with the United States but to defend their country from a possible terrorist insurgent set on attacking the United states.

Then there would be no need to send US forces into Canada for homeland defence. This would allow the US to expand our war against these terrorist to the countries that they call home. Such as Iran, Syria, Iraq, The west bank, and Lebanon to name a few. In turn preventing future attacks against the US and our allies.

---

I disagree. Soldiers are not cops. They shouldn't be treated that way. Having Canada field a bigger, better, shinier, with all the toys, type Army would not solve the problems you are talking about.

I think E5 made the right point. Terrorist do not fight in a conventional way therefore a conventional response is a waste of time, money, and equipment.

Like I posted earlier anyone dealing with these problems should have sensitive areas protected by personal paid for (possibly trained by an Army liaison) by the corporation that owns / operates them. Power plants, dams, etc. They should be mandated by law to provide security for these installations, and further, to meet the standard established by law and be inspected by maybe military personnel.

Using the military as cops is the wrong answer. We have too much mission as it is. Activating Guard / Reserve units is also the wrong answer for a long term strategy.

Canada has no need to base their military plans off what we do. None. Assisting us hunt down killers is another matter. The world has a moral imperative to stop terrorist attacks and capture any would be bomber.

[Guest Remo Williams]

quote:

---

I disagree. Soldiers are not cops. They shouldn't be treated that way. Having Canada field a bigger, better, shinier, with all the toys, type Army would not solve the problems you are talking about.

---

Actually I agree with you here as to the military not being a police force. Lets say though we start being attacked by terrorist coming out of secret cells in Canada. Do you believe the Canadian Police force have the man power and resources to track these cells down? preventing them from crossing into the US to attack, and maintain law and order for there own citizens?

It appears from the article their own government doesn't think even their military is capable of the job right now. Let alone their under funded over worked police force. So who does that leave to do the job of tracking down possible terrorist cells in Canada, our police force? I don't think so. It would be our military the same way were doing it in Afghanistan right now. This is what Canada doesn't want to occur. Hence the sudden worry about beefing up their military.

[ 06-14-2002, 16:25: Message edited by: Remo Williams ]

[Epsilon 5]

In Canada, we have the RCMP as federal police corp (the FBI equivalent) and a secret service (forgot the initials), which is the equivalent of the CIA, and the provincial and municipal police corps. They probably aren't as good as their US counterparts, but they do the job.

The military itself doesn't anything. The military in Afganistan just dropped bombs on areas believe to have terrorists, and they methodically swept all the mountains in area believed to host terrorists. There's no real intelligence involved.

You can't do it that way if you are looking for terrorists in North America. Terrorist camouflage themselves in the population, and you can't just just accuse anyone which is of arab origin and has or seeks a flying permit, or owns a gun, or bought components that *could* be used to make bombs. It's very complex.

[Guest $iLk]

quote:

---

Canada all but undefended

---

My plan is working perfectly...

[Raven]

ROTFLMAO