Canadian military

178 posts / 0 new
Last post
WWWTT

kropotkin1951 wrote:

The only threat to Canada is from its Southern border and given that it goes from sea to sea and is shared with the most militarized country on the planet it is obvious we cannot defend ourselves no matter how much of our GNP we spend on weapons.

WWWTT you need to read about the War of 181 and the Fraser Canyon in the 1850's. Canada is now a vassal state of the US and is being asked to up the ante in its support of the global empire. The question is how much are we willing to pay as Canadians, for our share of the planetary plunder?

I think I get the jist of it kropotkin thanks.

This is a very difficult subject! The English French Americans and Portuguese Spanish and Dutch are the real invaders bringing war and death to the Americas! Perhaps it's better to refer to white Canada and US as the imperialist to seperate us from the Indiginous peoples.

Imperialist Canada and imperialist US have never been invaded raped murdered slaughtered humiliated dehumanized etc etc like India Nigeria South Africa Indonesia Syria Irag Afghanistan etc etc etc etc! I strongly believe that a countries peoples that has survived such horrific impacts may very well never want to inflict the same nightmares on other nations peoples.

Anyways, the focus for the imperialist Canadian military needs to shift from offensive NATO to defensive, more search and rescue orientated. A complete redifinition and approach is completely warranted! 

Perhaps fellow babblers can expand on this?

Pondering

WWWTT wrote:
 I strongly believe that a countries peoples that has survived such horrific impacts may very well never want to inflict the same nightmares on other nations peoples. 

I'm pretty sure that isn't true. It is just as likely that they want revenge. As far as I can tell it is the leaders of countries not their people who promote war. Canadians don't agitate for or demand troops be sent anywhere. It is always a selling job for whomever is in power. 

Most Canadians are not interested in what Canada is doing militarily. They assume we are always on the right side militarily. Those who are concerned are thinking of the cost in dollars and/or Canadian lives. Those who are vaguely in favor of Canadian military involvement consider it our duty to the international community to do our part and that if we don't it will hurt our relationships, in particular the relationship with the US. 

WWWTT wrote:

Anyways, the focus for the imperialist Canadian military needs to shift from offensive NATO to defensive, more search and rescue orientated. A complete redifinition and approach is completely warranted!   

The only way that can happen is if we turn the tide on neoliberalism and free market ideology and even then it is unlikely we will either leave NATO or the Five Eyes. 

Michael Moriarity Michael Moriarity's picture

I have expressed my thoughts on Canada's military needs in other threads, but not for a few years, so I'll voice my unpopular opinion again. I believe there is no serious military threat to Canada other than the U.S. Also, the U.S. is so powerful that any attempt to defend against them militarily would be suicidal. We are somewhat in the position of Alba Longa with respect to the early Roman empire. We share mostly the same history and culture, we are theoretically friends and allies, but in reality, we are merely a vassal state. As part of our imperial tribute, we are compelled to provide some military forces. In fact, those forces are fully integrated into the U.S. imperial war machine.

The clear conclusion for me is that what Canada needs for a military is the minimum the U.S. will let us get away with. I think that if any Canadian government were to attempt a truly independent foreign policy, one seriously at odds with imperial interests,  that government would quickly be overthrown, by military coup, or other less direct means. Then, democracy would be restored to Canada by a U.S. approved P.M. (Maybe someone like Mad Max?). If you think this is far-fetched, you should read up on John Diefenbaker and the Bomarc missile affair.

Of course, there are practical things that are done by the military, such as search and rescue, assisting in fire fighting and so on. We should spend as much of our military budget as possible on these practical uses, and as little as possible on the actual war making parts. We should carefully calculate how little we can spend on the military, and how independent our foreign policy can be without being squashed like a bug, and do the best we can under the circumstances.

Mobo2000

Agree 100%, well said.

Paladin1

NDPP wrote:

Of course they do. Just look at the wonders achieved by western troops there so far.

 

Yup they do. No denying the west fucked up and ruined the country. The also recognize the west is whats preventing them from getting steamrolled by ISIS again. They want us there to train them, help them against ISIS, give them modern equipment and of course give them money.

WWWTT wrote:

Anyways, the focus for the imperialist Canadian military needs to shift from offensive NATO to defensive, more search and rescue orientated. A complete redifinition and approach is completely warranted!

Is that search and rescue inside Canada or abroad?  Can we justify a budget of 20.6 billion (US) to rescue lost hikers and snowmobilers?

Michael Moriarity wrote:

 

Of course, there are practical things that are done by the military, such as search and rescue, assisting in fire fighting and so on. We should spend as much of our military budget as possible on these practical uses, and as little as possible on the actual war making parts. We should carefully calculate how little we can spend on the military, and how independent our foreign policy can be without being squashed like a bug, and do the best we can under the circumstances.

I find the military often gets thrown into duties/jobs/tasks like fighting fires and sandbagging floods and shoveling snow in Toronto because of a byproduct of military training, mobility, brainwashing and of course how we've trained to fight.

Specialists aside, that is actual military fire fighters or search and rescue technicians, we basically take people untrained in a job and throw them in feet first. Guys I know who helped with firefighting had no idea what the hell they were doing. Do we want to pay someone $68,000 a year to fill sandbags and drop them to make a dam?

I agree about the defense of Canada. Chances we're going to be attacked are pretty small.

The military remains a tool used by the government to project our national interests and remain relevant in world politics. The UN asks Canada to be involved in UN peacekeeping missions, not Andorra or Monaco.

 

NDPP

#132: 'How It Is': The Canadian Bootlicker who knows his place...

Paladin1

$32.7 billion

That'll buy a lot of sandbags and snow shovels for Toronto lol

NDPP

Trudeau Continues Canada's War in Iraq With Little Media Coverage

https://buff.ly/2Fk7WXr

"As of January 10, 2016, the United States, CANADA, Great Britain, France, Australia and several other countries had carried out 6,341 airstrikes in Iraq...In February, 2016, the Trudeau government announced it would be spending $1.6 billion in Iraq over the following three years. It now boasts in a media release that it has spent 'more than $2.1 billion' in the region. Where's the critical and contextual media coverage?"

There isn't any. 

NDPP

Canadian Soldiers Carry Guns in 'Full Fighting Order' at Toronto's Khalsa Day

https://globalnews.ca/news/5223262/canadian-soldiers-unmuzzled-weapons-k...

"The forces called it 'misguided."

Banana republic.

kropotkin1951 kropotkin1951's picture

NDPP wrote:

Canadian Soldiers Carry Guns in 'Full Fighting Order' at Toronto's Khalsa Day

https://globalnews.ca/news/5223262/canadian-soldiers-unmuzzled-weapons-k...

"The forces called it 'misguided."

Banana republic.

Its getting harder and harder to keep up the facade when you live in the belly of the beast. Those soldiers are what many people in various parts of the world think of when they hear the phrase Canadian soldier. In other countries the guns are loaded and potentially usable against any of the nearby population who do not collaborate with our heroic invaders.

NorthReport

Michael Post #154

Well said!

NDPP

CAF in Ukraine

https://twitter.com/CAFinUkraine/status/1149955680734011394

"Canada-Ukraine, brotherhood of paratroopers, brotherhood of warriors!  #OpUNIFIER "

Remember the Airborne...

NDPP

"Brave, courageous, selfless. Honored to join these Canadian Forces members at the Embassy and thank them for their service to US military units and operations under US military command." - US Amb Kelly Craft [newly named by Trump, US ambassador to the UN]

https://twitter.com/USAmbCanada/status/1151227042136035328

NDPP

Canadian Armed Forces Investigating Member For Alleged Involvement in Hate Network

https://globalnews.ca/news/5785682/winnipeg-canadian-hate-network-milita...

"A statement from the Canadian Armed Forces released Monday confirmed the military is aware of allegations indicating a member may be involved in an organization that promotes hate..."

But CF training Ukrainian fascists is fine.

https://twitter.com/mikolaswed/status/913468028741996545

Paladin1

NDPP wrote:

But CF training Ukrainian fascists is fine.

https://twitter.com/mikolaswed/status/913468028741996545

 

Your source thinks women are property.

NDPP

No surprise. The source is an Azov Nazi fanboy. Like the ones CF is training for Ukraine.

Paladin1

Canadian Forces to help Halifax with massive post-Dorian cleanup

https://globalnews.ca/news/5872891/canadian-forces-post-dorian/

 

One again the army is being sent out to help with a natural disaster.

Floods, bush fires, hurricanes, snow storms if you're in Toronto. It's fairly easy to deploy the military to these events. The military isn't (as) bogged down by municipal and provincial politics. Self contained, and can sleep in the bush or in ditches esentially.

Question #1 - SHOULD we use the military for this? With climate disasters seemingly on the increase it seems like the CAF will be called to do this work more and more.

Question #2 - Should the military recieve more money to purchase vehicles and equipment intended for civil use? During the Ottawa vally floods some CAF members were going to the local stores to buy hip waders out of their own pockets because they didn't want to stand in (litteral) shit water all day.  

kropotkin1951 kropotkin1951's picture

We should be using the military for that purpose and not buying weapons of semi-mass destruction to bomb other countries. We have lots of money in the military budget if we cease trying to be part of the global hegemony team.

Paladin1

kropotkin1951 wrote:

We should be using the military for that purpose and not buying weapons of semi-mass destruction to bomb other countries. We have lots of money in the military budget if we cease trying to be part of the global hegemony team.

But then it wouldn't be the military. When someone joins the army to drive a tank they want to drive a tank. They'll do what they're told and go shovel snow but the end state is going back to driving tanks.

We would need to start from scratch. It might work, we might see thousands or tens of thousands of Canadians interested in a civil emergency response. But in my experience civilian agencies and organizations don't have the same ability as the military to deploy that quickly and effeciently. Part of that comes from the discipline instilled in recruits and the brain washing we do. Can you imagine telling a young single mother of 3 that you don't care that she can't find a babysitter she needs to pack her shit and leave for up to a month - otherwise she'll get thrown in jail?

The military can get used as slave labour basically. That may not work well when you try to do it with civlians.

Ken Burch Ken Burch's picture

Paladin1 wrote:

kropotkin1951 wrote:

We should be using the military for that purpose and not buying weapons of semi-mass destruction to bomb other countries. We have lots of money in the military budget if we cease trying to be part of the global hegemony team.

But then it wouldn't be the military. When someone joins the army to drive a tank they want to drive a tank. They'll do what they're told and go shovel snow but the end state is going back to driving tanks.

We would need to start from scratch. It might work, we might see thousands or tens of thousands of Canadians interested in a civil emergency response. But in my experience civilian agencies and organizations don't have the same ability as the military to deploy that quickly and effeciently. Part of that comes from the discipline instilled in recruits and the brain washing we do. Can you imagine telling a young single mother of 3 that you don't care that she can't find a babysitter she needs to pack her shit and leave for up to a month - otherwise she'll get thrown in jail?

The military can get used as slave labour basically. That may not work well when you try to do it with civlians.

Some questions arise from that

1) Are there really that many situations where it's absolutely essential to use slave labour?

2) Does it matter WHAT a person joins the service hoping to do?  My understanding is that you pretty much do what they tell you to do, and the vast majority of what the troops are told to do, outside of actual combat, is mainly drudgery like maintaining the grounds of the base where they are stationed.

3) Does what you're saying here open the door to a discussion of some form of "national service", in which a person agrees to sign up for a period of time but what they sign up for isn't about war?  That it might be about repairing delapidated buildings in a low-income area, or providing disaster relief(there's a strong case for a full-time Disaster Corps that would be on-call to deal with disaster situations at home or in other places).

4) To what degree should Canada's foreign policy even be about war?  Obviously Canada needs to be protected against eternal military attack-and its exceedingly unlikely that anybody would actually try to attack it militarily-but there really aren't any situations outside of that where the use of Canadian force is going to serve any meaningful good in the world.  The case for any further use of force against the Arab/Muslim world simply doesn't exist  Western force made nothing better in Iraq or Afghanistan or Libya it can't make anything better in Yemen  or Iran.  War has been a failure in terms of acheiving any positive goals for the world at all since VE Day. 

cco

Ken Burch wrote:

3) Does what you're saying here open the door to a discussion of some form of "national service", in which a person agrees to sign up for a period of time but what they sign up for isn't about war?  That it might be about repairing delapidated buildings in a low-income area, or providing disaster relief(there's a strong case for a full-time Disaster Corps that would be on-call to deal with disaster situations at home or in other places).

I hope not. There's no call for such a strictly regimented rights-violating system of employment outside of defending the country against military threats. For such an idea to emerge from pro-labour leftist circles is bizarre. If the government wants to spend to fix buildings and deal with disasters – and it should – there's no reason it can't do so by employing unionized workers with rights. Or do you think that a drilled and servile workforce with no rights that can be ordered anywhere by the government will only be used for gentrification and hurricane relief? My guess is they'd be first on the line as guaranteed scabs the minute there was a labour strike with national implications – just like Ronald Reagan used military air traffic controllers when he fired the striking ones.

Ken Burch Ken Burch's picture

cco wrote:
Ken Burch wrote:

3) Does what you're saying here open the door to a discussion of some form of "national service", in which a person agrees to sign up for a period of time but what they sign up for isn't about war?  That it might be about repairing delapidated buildings in a low-income area, or providing disaster relief(there's a strong case for a full-time Disaster Corps that would be on-call to deal with disaster situations at home or in other places).

I hope not. There's no call for such a strictly regimented rights-violating system of employment outside of defending the country against military threats. For such an idea to emerge from pro-labour leftist circles is bizarre. If the government wants to spend to fix buildings and deal with disasters – and it should – there's no reason it can't do so by employing unionized workers with rights. Or do you think that a drilled and servile workforce with no rights that can be ordered anywhere by the government will only be used for gentrification and hurricane relief? My guess is they'd be first on the line as guaranteed scabs the minute there was a labour strike with national implications – just like Ronald Reagan used military air traffic controllers when he fired the striking ones.

Fair enough.

Paladin1

Ken Burch wrote:

Some questions arise from that

1) Are there really that many situations where it's absolutely essential to use slave labour?

I think it's a part of the institution. When you look at it from a business perspective it changes things I think. As a business owner would you be okay with paying 100 of your employees 2 hours worth of pay to stand outside a building waiting for it to open? And losing 200 hours of productivity in one day? Or take a highly trained specialist and pay them to pick up cigarette butts all morning and rake rocks and sticks off of grass all afternoon? The military as an institution treats it's members as a sort of slave labour is what I mean.

Quote:
2) Does it matter WHAT a person joins the service hoping to do?  My understanding is that you pretty much do what they tell you to do, and the vast majority of what the troops are told to do, outside of actual combat, is mainly drudgery like maintaining the grounds of the base where they are stationed.

When someone looks at their career asperations I think so. One of the problems our pilots are facing is that they join the airforce and become pilots to, surprise surprise, fly aircraft. The problem is they're taken out of the cockpit and put into administrative jobs or doing leadership roles they don't want to do. So now you have a highly trained pilot ($$$) who is very unhappy with their job, who isn't able to fly anymore and can make double the money working for a civilian airline company. The reason why a member joins is important because it can be a deciding factor whether the military (and you as a tax payer) will get a 25 year return on the money spent, or, they'll quit and need to be replaced. Which is more money for training, more money to pay for instructors etc.

Quote:
3) Does what you're saying here open the door to a discussion of some form of "national service", in which a person agrees to sign up for a period of time but what they sign up for isn't about war?  That it might be about repairing delapidated buildings in a low-income area, or providing disaster relief(there's a strong case for a full-time Disaster Corps that would be on-call to deal with disaster situations at home or in other places).

I think a national service model could work but there's a few obstacles. We base our views off success off money. As well, there needs to be a driving force making people want to join. The Canadian military is the second highest paid military in NATO, just behind Austrailia. Soldiers make a LOT of money in Canada, yet we're critically short people. We're also losing more people than we're gaining.  It would be a challange to entice young Canadians to this, I think.

Quote:

4) To what degree should Canada's foreign policy even be about war?  Obviously Canada needs to be protected against eternal military attack-and its exceedingly unlikely that anybody would actually try to attack it militarily-but there really aren't any situations outside of that where the use of Canadian force is going to serve any meaningful good in the world.  The case for any further use of force against the Arab/Muslim world simply doesn't exist  Western force made nothing better in Iraq or Afghanistan or Libya it can't make anything better in Yemen  or Iran.  War has been a failure in terms of acheiving any positive goals for the world at all since VE Day. 

Military power is a major factor in a countries place in the world hierarchy. It's a manner to protect/enforce Canadian interests abroad.  Until we decide to leave NATO we're a fairly major member and have duties and obligations, the same with being in the UN.

It's not a very pleasent way of seeing things but at the end of the day physical force is the only thing some people listen to.

Ken Burch Ken Burch's picture

Paladin1 wrote:

Ken Burch wrote:

Some questions arise from that

1) Are there really that many situations where it's absolutely essential to use slave labour?

I think it's a part of the institution. When you look at it from a business perspective it changes things I think. As a business owner would you be okay with paying 100 of your employees 2 hours worth of pay to stand outside a building waiting for it to open? And losing 200 hours of productivity in one day? Or take a highly trained specialist and pay them to pick up cigarette butts all morning and rake rocks and sticks off of grass all afternoon? The military as an institution treats it's members as a sort of slave labour is what I mean.

Quote:
2) Does it matter WHAT a person joins the service hoping to do?  My understanding is that you pretty much do what they tell you to do, and the vast majority of what the troops are told to do, outside of actual combat, is mainly drudgery like maintaining the grounds of the base where they are stationed.

When someone looks at their career asperations I think so. One of the problems our pilots are facing is that they join the airforce and become pilots to, surprise surprise, fly aircraft. The problem is they're taken out of the cockpit and put into administrative jobs or doing leadership roles they don't want to do. So now you have a highly trained pilot ($$$) who is very unhappy with their job, who isn't able to fly anymore and can make double the money working for a civilian airline company. The reason why a member joins is important because it can be a deciding factor whether the military (and you as a tax payer) will get a 25 year return on the money spent, or, they'll quit and need to be replaced. Which is more money for training, more money to pay for instructors etc.

Quote:
3) Does what you're saying here open the door to a discussion of some form of "national service", in which a person agrees to sign up for a period of time but what they sign up for isn't about war?  That it might be about repairing delapidated buildings in a low-income area, or providing disaster relief(there's a strong case for a full-time Disaster Corps that would be on-call to deal with disaster situations at home or in other places).

I think a national service model could work but there's a few obstacles. We base our views off success off money. As well, there needs to be a driving force making people want to join. The Canadian military is the second highest paid military in NATO, just behind Austrailia. Soldiers make a LOT of money in Canada, yet we're critically short people. We're also losing more people than we're gaining.  It would be a challange to entice young Canadians to this, I think.

Quote:

4) To what degree should Canada's foreign policy even be about war?  Obviously Canada needs to be protected against eternal military attack-and its exceedingly unlikely that anybody would actually try to attack it militarily-but there really aren't any situations outside of that where the use of Canadian force is going to serve any meaningful good in the world.  The case for any further use of force against the Arab/Muslim world simply doesn't exist  Western force made nothing better in Iraq or Afghanistan or Libya it can't make anything better in Yemen  or Iran.  War has been a failure in terms of acheiving any positive goals for the world at all since VE Day. 

Military power is a major factor in a countries place in the world hierarchy. It's a manner to protect/enforce Canadian interests abroad.  Until we decide to leave NATO we're a fairly major member and have duties and obligations, the same with being in the UN.

It's not a very pleasent way of seeing things but at the end of the day physical force is the only thing some people listen to.

The people force is being used against in the Arab/Muslim world aren't "listening" to it.  Western military intervention hasn't caused any significant postive changes anywhere in the region, and there is no sign that it will produce any positive changes in the long-term.

For example...Saddam was a scumbag.  Nothing in Iraq is any better for the Iraqi people as a result of his removal from power.  Nothing is better in Libya as a result of Qadafi being not only overthrown but butchered on camera.  Nothing is better in Afghanistan-all that has happened there is that there are different tyrants.  Nothing is better for anybody in Syria from any previous use of Western military force and nothing can be made better there by ratcheting up the use of that force.

As to NATO, it has no real reason to exist any longer.  There is no valid reason to have a defensive alliance in Europe which works on the assumption that the Cold War never ended.  NATO should have been wound up when the USSR was wound up, in 1991.   The only thing it did after that was to give Putin something to focus the anger of the people of Russia-a justified anger after "the West" decided that it wasn't enough for the US-Soviet rivalry to end, but that Russia needed to be made to play the role of the vanquished, humiliated nation and needed to be subjected to years of economic immiseration.  The West should have offered Gorbachev an equal partnership for peace and prosperity-instead, it insisted on gloating and claiming victory, forced Gorbachev to dissolve the USSR when it should have been enough to simply come to an end of hostilities-it not only humiliated Gorbachev after he did everything "the West" had demanded of him, essentially forced him out in favor of Boris Yeltsin, then treated Yeltsin, the guy "the West" themselves had elevated to thge presidency, as nothing but a drunken buffoon, and then acted as though it couldn't understand why a demagogue like Putin was able to take advantage of the situation "the West" and create massive popular support for a right-wing nationalist dictatorship by promising to avenge the shame "Mother Russia" had been subjected to.

There was a chance to create a stable, prosperous partnership for peace, democracy and stability-but "the West" just wouldn't let it happen.

Today, all NATO is is a symbol of the bloody-minded arrogant stupidity of the alleged leaders of "the West".  

 

 

 

 

NDPP

Scott Taylor: Our Soldiers Should Not Be Used As Symbolic Props

https://t.co/LabWUOP3Yu

"If local Ukrianian nationalists in the town of Sambir wish to revise their history and continue to exhibit blatant acts of anti-Semitism, that should not be supported by Canada. It certainly should not be granted the appearance of official sanction by having Canadian soldiers commemorate those who collaborated with Hitler's Nazis in perpetrating the Holocaust."

I guess orders are orders. Canada knows full well who they have been supporting, training and arming. So does Chrystia Freeland. And her friend the chief Rabbi of Ukraine.

NDPP

Scott Taylor: Our Soldiers Should Not Be Used As Symbolic Props

https://t.co/LabWUOP3Yu

"If local Ukrianian nationalists in the town of Sambir wish to revise their history and continue to exhibit blatant acts of anti-Semitism, that should not be supported by Canada. It certainly should not be granted the appearance of official sanction by having Canadian soldiers commemorate those who collaborated with Hitler's Nazis in perpetrating the Holocaust."

I guess orders are orders. Canada knows full well who they have been supporting, training and arming. So does Chrystia Freeland. So does her friend the chief Rabbi of Ukraine & VP of the World Jewish Congress. It's Ukraine. It's complicated.

NDPP

Israeli Defence Attache Cultivates Ties With Canadian Military

https://www.cjnews.com/news/canada/israeli-defence-attache-cultivates-ti...

"...It turns out there is a great deal of cooperation between the two militaries. 'Our relationship is robust and totally agnostic to the notion of who is in power,' Col Amos Nachmani said. Nachmani said he engages 'regularly with the different services in the Canadian Armed Forces, to understand your capabilities, your needs, your plans, in order to see where we can help each other out.'

In 2017, Nachmani joined former Canadian Chief of the Defence Staff, Gen Thomas J Lawson to discuss 'The Future of the Israel-NATO Strategic Partnership.' For other militaries, the IDF 'is a very valuable partner and ally for a country like Canada, due to our deep understanding of the situation in the Middle East, our intelligence capabilities and assessment and our operational experience,' he said. From his experience interacting with Canadian soldiers, Nachmani believes the IDF and the Canadian Forces share many values..."

No doubt. Pretty good for a racist little apartheid terror-state eh? And a very busy lobby and fifth column that never sleeps working to keep it that way too. Canadian Zionization continues apace.

Pages