News   Apr 26, 2024
Sustainability Month: ReHousing — A Multiplex How-To Guide Explores What’s Possible in the Yellowbelt
 1.4K     4 
News   Apr 26, 2024
Mattamy's Soleil and Mile & Creek Condos in Milton’s Flourishing Landscape
 321     0 
News   Apr 26, 2024
Galleria on the Park Soon to Welcome First Residents of Masterplanned Community
 877     0 

Xenophobic Layton plays the anti-Yankee card

Anti-Americanism works in Canada.
Click to expand...

The right wing clings desperately to this claim that those who oppose the Iraq War are "anti-American". The majority of the world was against the war, but being anti-war does not automatically make one anti-American.

Canada did not support the idea of war, and the US didn't agree with us, but that doesn't automatically make all Americans "anti-Canadian".
 
Oh - let me add: I knew the National Post was pathetic, but I didn't realize how pathetic.
 
Well, I don't think the Toronto Star is an example of good journalism either.
 
Re: Who'd Invade Us?!!? (Now who's playing the Xenophobic ca

We should perhaps look at the Swiss model for our national defense.
Click to expand...

You want an assault rifle in every closet? That might be a bit extreme....

Kevin
 
Re: Who'd Invade Us?!!? (Now who's playing the Xenophobic ca

So long as it was a *registered* assault rifle! :rollin

...Actually, knowing the Swiss, that's probably not too far off the mark.
 
Re: Who'd Invade Us?!!? (Now who's playing the Xenophobic ca

we have 15,000 in our Reg Force and another 15,000 in our Reserves. Our Navy Has only 46 ships, about 15 of which are not suitable for combat. our Air Force has about 60 COMBAT ready Fighters. Our Defense Department is woefully underfunded, we need Airlift and sea-lift abilities which is not present, our navy is unable to keep the 40 year old Sea King Helicopters in the air, and we need a presence in the Arctic which is not going to happen. The armed forces although well trained we are under funded and underequiped, it will take tens of billions if not Hundreds of billions of dollars, to get our Army, Air Force, and Navy up to what it should be. Ideally I think we should have a Reg Force of 250,000-300,000 troops in addition to another 100,000 Reservists, 40 Squadrons in the air force, and a 3 Ocean Navy, in addition to the Ability to Move our troops anywhere in the world, to help enforce UN mandate and to allow us to maintain Peacekeeping Operations around the world, I think it would take 25-30 years to implement though, this IMO is the only way we could be a truly independent nation, with out relying on the United States.
 
Re: Who'd Invade Us?!!? (Now who's playing the Xenophobic ca

Why should it be this way? We don't need a standing army of 250,000 to defend our nation from the north, the west or the east. And no expenditure in God's green earth would be sufficient to defend ourselves from invasion from the United States.

We only need an army to meet our international obligations and handle disasters at home. The cost of this is only a billion more than what it should be, not tens of billions. Increasing our army to the level of the Swiss is simply not realistic, totally unnecessary, and would significantly alter the core values that make Canada worth defending.

...James
 
actually we need 2-4 Billion a year to Keep our Armed Forces from Collapsing, and the large standing army is to anticipate ANY problems home or Abroad. you may not believe that we need an large army but remember that we cannot maintain our Current Obligations to UN and NATO, and 1 Billion more a year will do little to fix the current situation. the 10's of billions is over 20 or so years.
 
I don't believe we need to expand our military to such size - besides, it's not the actual size, but the flexibility and ability to project force that matters nowadays.

That being said, there should be plans to expand the miltary as the need arises - let's face it, we've been caught off guard before twice the last century, and it's only prudent to prepare.

I am not so sure whether the Swiss model is all that different from our perspective of nationhood. In many ways, Canadians are fiercely proud, just somewhat circumspect in expressing that. Having a strong reserve force doesn't run contrary to that at all, IMO.

GB
 
OK - we need new hardware. We cannot be a middle power if you don't have the tools. We cannot go around demanding that the US get involved here but not there, etc, when we have nothing to offer.
We need the EH-101, and look for Martin to buy them after the next election.
We need new guns, tanks, jeeps.

If you don't have the tools of the trade, you cannot do the job.
 
For once, I agree. You don't have to believe in a large standing army for Canada in order to see that those Sea Kings _desperately_ need replacing.

Although I think Canadians can be forgiven for not seeing so eleven years ago when the outgoing Conservative government moved to have them replaced.

...James
 
alright, I concede that 250,000 troops is a bit much, but I think 90,000-95,000 troops (Reg force and reservests) would allow us the breathing room to take on new UN peace keeping missions and Respond to threats both foriegn and domestic.
 
we have 15,000 in our Reg Force and another 15,000 in our Reserves.
Click to expand...

Your a tiny bit off there, we in fact have, as of 1999 so it #'s are going down, 60,000 regualrs, 30,000 reserves and 20,000 'civilians'.

Care of: www.dnd.ca/site/minister/eng/benchmark/bench_intro_e.htm

Out force is maybe a bit small for our size, but its new equipment we need, not a larger force really.

Also from the site above, current active force:

Australia 57,600
Canada 61,600
Italy 315,500
Netherlands 53,500
Sweden 41,500
Britain 216,300
 
Maybe, but our combined forces are comparable to other countries of the same size, and our spending on forces per capita is even more than Italy's and also comparable to other countries.
 
You must log in or register to post here.

Back
Top