babble is rabble.ca's discussion board but it's much more than that: it's an online community for folks who just won't shut up. It's a place to tell each other — and the world — what's up with our work and campaigns.
Support rabble | Advertise with us | Contact our staff | About rabble | Log-in or Register for a new account | Corrections | Privacy policy | Newsfeeds | Mailing lists
rabble: Features | Columnists | In Cahoots | Blogs | Books | Photos | What's Up | Polls
babble: Forum Topics | Active Topics
The rpn: About the RPN | Become a podcaster
rabbleTV: Program Guide | Features | Indie Inside | Best of the net
Copyright © 2001-2013 the authors
Syndicate
Well SJ, why did you not revolt? Why did you not lead by example? Why did you not destroy the military machine from within? What are you doing with your military pension?
Am I partly to blame, yes I am. However I am trying to change the system in the ways I can. If you look at all the leadership threads I constantly asked the NDP contenders if they would disband the military.
I do not care for governments, political parties or the military because all three components want to rule and control over people. I am against that.
The Harpers should feel free to cut thousands more jobs across Canada during this Harper-led recession, we know.
I'll leave you here on this point with your own words.
And I thought I was friendless in this thread.
I think a good rule of thumb around here involves extending the benefit of the doubt, depending on the circumstance.
Opposing civil-service job cuts seems like a perfectly logical stance for the NDP to take, no? .... I mean, just because the jobs in question occur within the DND, arguing to keep them doesn't automatically translate, deviously, into some new NDP way of saying, "Support the Troops!"... does it?
although, now that you mention it, no redeeming proviso, like "Bring 'em Home!", seems implicit there, either ....
hmmm.... and Mulcaire does rhyme with Blair.....
Well it's obvious to me what he have to do now. We should try to change the system by attacking the one party that has never governed federally. As Henry Ford and Alf Sloan used to say about their branch plants in Nazi Germany, it werks for me.
I am aware of more than a few US resisters who refused to go to war, in Iraq and Afghanistan. I can't say that I am aware of any Canadians. Does anyone else know if there was anyone who refused to go do imperial slaughter for Queen & KKKanaduh in Afghanistan, or Libya? And publicly said so?
my own observations lead me to believe there is an unofficial, unspoken agreement between the no difference party and our ruling elites, such that if elite interests require war, the ndp, aside from some pro-forma token opposition designed to pacity eternally hopeful true believers, ultimately collaborates and doesn't oppose in any real way worthy of the name.
But I am very interested in the question of CF resisters. Were there any?
So you'd prefer not to have SAR at all?
I support having a strong Canadian military. We have 2/3 of the world's fresh water supply. Everywhere else it's drying up fast. I think it's in our own self interest to have a strong military. Now all we need is a strong government to keep the paws of those multinational corporations off our water.
DND should be about defense, not invading other countries. I support keeping the Canadian military, but not for overseas adventures - and downsozing it a bit, and cancelling the F35s altogether. Keep the F18s as long as possible, just for territorial defense, however that's defined, then put out the most open and transparent procurement possible for replacements - but with two engines and landing capability in the north. Finally, as I wrote earlier, DND would also be on call to use their expertise and staffing to help out when requested anywhere in Canada to help with difficult infrastructure, including the north and isolated aboriginal communities.
I live in an area where we have trained Canadian Rangers by the way. For some strange reason, the military came in and trained them on the operation of 50 calibre machine guns.
ETA: The military budget definitely needs to be pared back. Maybe by half.
Canada: How the NDP Facilitates Imperialist War - Part 1 From Yugoslavia to Haiti - by Graham Beverly
http://www.wsws.org/articles/2011/aug2011/cana-a23.shtml
"...As a review of the NDP's record over the past dozen years exemplifies, the NDP's role in supporting the NATO war against Libya conforms with a long pattern of facilitating Canadian overseas military interventions and Canadian imperialism's ever more rapacious role on the world stage. At the most critical junctures, the NDP helped rally support for and politically legitimize the use of the CAF to bolster the predatory interests of the Canadian bourgeoisie..."
Part 2: From Kandahar to Libya
http://www.wsws.org/articles/2011/aug2011/cndp-a24.shtml
"...To oppose the increasingly rapacious and bellicose Canadian bourgeoisie, the working class must build a genuine socialist-internationalist party in opposition to the social democrats of the NDP and to all who seek to dress this hand-maiden of Canadian imperialism in left and progressive colors.."
..back in the late 90's jean chrétien led a trade mission to southeast asia. on that particular junket he took along military equipment manufactuers and provincial ministers. representing bc was premier glen clark and a couple other ministers.
..shortly after this trip i read a lefty magazine that reported the trip was all about selling canadian military equipment to governments ie indonesia who was ruled by suharto at the time. the article also reported that there were a couple of those manufactures in bc.
..i was very troubled by this report as i had just voted for joy macphail so i wrote a letter to the ndp government providing background and asking four questions.
1) was it true that clark and other bc ministers went on this junket?
2) what was their policy on human rights when it came to selling military equip to the likes of suharto?
3) were the companies making this equip get tax breaks?
i forget the 4th question.
..after hearing no reply after 2 mon i went tyo macphail's constituency office where my questions were met with hostility. I did not let that deter me and remained there until they gave me the name of dan miller and that i should write to him. so i did. about a month later i received a letter from miller's office. i was to get the run-a-round. yes i was told they did go on this trip and got a spiel about the economy. further the letter said that the human rights question had been sent to that particular dept, the military equip issue went to the dept that dealt with small arms and the tax break question went to taxation. i never heard from them again though i complained in writing to macphail. they behaved just like every other gov in all manner of ways.
..so it's not like we have a blank slate as to how the fed ndp will behave once in power. the only realistic argument i made in their defence was that they were better then the the libs or cons. after europe i don't say that anymore. i realize that the disaster crisis of capitalism has intensified and there is a vicious desperation to get at every resource and exploit as many human beings to the fullest for the benefit of the few. the europen social democrats had no real defence against this capitalism other than calling on the population/social movements to defend it but they didn't. so they became what they said they were different from. the ndp (the party) in canada are doing the same. like heros going it alone. so the crisis will have it's way. military spending/nato will not change. saying it will is not enough. campaign promises are not enough. it needs to be shown in real and clear policy along with a plan on how it will be achieved. and that begins with open dialogue with canadians on what direction we should be moving in rather than playing the vanguard party that knows what's best for the rest of us.
I know? Let's focus off of the two dirty old line parties and their actual war crimes to describe how the NDP has never, as in not once, made a federal government decision to bomb or invade any country on Uncle Sam's orders. I think that apologizing for actual government war crimes by deflecting blame to never once elected opposition parties might even be a war crime in and of itself.
..your the one deflecting fidel.
I know people who got out entirely, or who transferred to the Reserves where one has to volunteer for outside of country operations, in order to either avoid deploying or re-deploying to Afghanistan. None that I know of made a media spectacle of their decisions. These would be people with 15 or more years in, some significantly more, who have been around the block. It wouldn't matter what the reasons were to the reactionary media bead on them and their families, if they had spoken out.
New Democrats call on Canada to support international arms treaty MPs call on government join with international community and sign treaty
"Wrong hands"? Is that like when the Gladio Gang arms Al-CIA'duh "covertly" in order for Al-Qa'eda and its affiliates to overthrow governments in oil-rich or otherwise geostrategically significant countries as far as the "Atlantic Alliance" heavily-armed nations are concerned?
And while we're waiting for an anti-corporate government to do just that, at least we'll have a strong military ready to gun down all those thirsty refugees at the border!
I don't know why this thread had to get derailed into a discussion about the personal reponsibility of DND employees. I had hoped for a discussion about what the interest of canada's social-democratic party might be in opposing staffing cuts in the imperialist war machine.
Or maybe that's a point that everyone takes for granted and needs no further elaboration or criticism?
Exactly. The country is surrounded by oceans on three sides. And if I'm not mistaken, the purpose of having a national defence should be to defend Canada's borders right here at home.
And there are all kinds of threats on our borders including mainly unseen Russian submarines and Russian battleships marauding into Canada's territory offshore. And we know that they are there because this is what Uncle Sam tells us to believe so it must be true.
And so I propose, and as the NDP does, that we build ships of all kinds for navy and civilian search and rescue, icebreakers etcetera. And the feds should go on a hiring spree and man/woman those ships to defend Canada's interests against all of evol Russian ships anchored offshore waiting to invade Canada. And we should pay thousands of young men and women good wages and generous benefits packages to defend Canada's borders 24-7 against the Soviets, I mean Russian military threat to Canada. And we might inadvertently end up protecting against any and all foreign fishing trawlers raiding Canada's fish stocks at the same time. And we should do it soon!
God bless Canada. We should stand and sail on guard at the ready, aye, ready for thee and not Uncle Sam over there in Afghanistan or whatever other fool's errand he instructs Ottawa to take part in on the other side of the world. Canadians know all about the importance of having a stay at home defence core. We need to protect things at our end of the ice, and not get caught with our pants down up-ice in Afghanistan.
With the increasing integration of Canadian forces with the US military, it is much more likely they would be protecting the transnational acquisition of that resource against any Canadians foolish enough to resist the takeover.
====
The threads opening post is a good example of the "Modernized" NDP's filthy embrace of what has been described by the misnomer of "Military Keynsianism", (refuted by Keynes himself).
This is part and parcel of the NDP's noticeably heightened nationalistic militarism, troop worship, and its embrace of foreign wars.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Military_Keynesianism
Canada spent around $22 billion on the military in 2010-11, an increase of 54% since what was probably a false flag attack on 9/11/01. And we will probably never know the entire truth unless the people demand a period of glasnost in America. For now it is an extension of permanent war economy in the U.S. as a result.
But Canadian William Krehm says Canadian governments at all levels spend approx. $60 billion dollars in interest payments every year to service whopping public debts owed to private sources.
Upside-down socialism for bankers and rich people achieves a similar demoralizing effect to Military Keynesianism in that it is money not spent on social programs or infrastructure to spur economic growth or benefit the public in general.
The only threat to Canadian borders or sovereignty of any significance is the U.S., but of course this is a threat against which nothing we could possibly do could prevail, so no effort on our part is worthwhile. It is also not conceivable that the U.S. would allow any other state actor to take over Canada (except perhaps as a proxy for the empire, in which case, see the previous point). Thus, defence against the Russians and the Chinese and all those threatening muslim countries is unnecessary as well.
There is only one real pragmatic reason for having an army as far as I can see. That is to be able to defeat some potential band of non-state adventurers and mercenaries, perhaps well funded, and perhaps led by a few right wing ex-Canadians. (Lord Black's freedom fighters, anyone?) Even a tiny regular army would deter any such scheme, and it certainly wouldn't require F-35s to do its job.
Beyond this, it's all imperial politics. We have no idea how much Canadian independence the U.S. would tolerate, because we have had such a subservient relationship to it for so many years. The most extreme expression of independence was Trudeau being a buddy of Fidel Castro. But even Trudeau did not dare to question which side of the cold war Canada was on.
No matter what he truly thinks and believes, any Canadian PM would have to be very careful not to go beyond what the empire will accept. If there is one thing that history since WW2 proves, it is that the U.S. empire will not tolerate serious insubordination by the governments of its "allies". I seriously believe that the continuation of such meagre independence as Canada now enjoys (for example, we get to run our own health care and education systems) would be put in jeopardy by a government which broke too openly with the U.S. While we can possibly beg off direct involvment in most imperial agression, it is questionable whether we could survive openly working against U.S. imperial interests.
With the starting price for 65 F35s now pegged at $25 billion and increasing almost by the day, isn't it obvious to everyone that we should be asking what the f*ck we need this things for???
We don't need them. My bet is that as other nations drop out (with the exception of Norway which increased its order) and pressure in the US rises, the jet itself will be cancelled or scaled back. This government never wants to back down so maybe its hoping that the decision is made for them.
We don't need them and it has nothing to do with the price. We wouldn't need them if they were free of charge.
But of course the opizishin doesn't want to talk about military policy and whether we need fighter jets, but prefers to talk about the only thing they really understand - money.
Yeah, I've never understood what role the F35s would play in defending Canada. Defending Canada against what??? When the F18s were new, they would occasionally intercept Soviet aircraft testing our airspace, but with the fall of the Soviet Union I haven't heard any threat from Russian aircraft - maybe there have been some intercepts and I just haven't read about them?
65 F35s sound like overkill for our national defense. I'd love to read a rational account from DND as to why they think the F35 is so necessary. Who are we under threat from, exactly? I'd really like to know.
For me, there are a number of areas where large savings could easily be made. I agree with Boom Boom that the F-35s are not needed for any Canadian prupose, but only as adjuncts to the US military. Cutting these would save at least the $25 billion mentioned in the auditor-general's report (and almost certainly more as this was only the 20 year cost -not the 35 year cost - of buying and maintaining them). Our submarine service is currently so unshipworthy that it belongs in a Monty Python skit and since any replacement fleet would amount to another F-35 boondoggle while only serving US interests once again, I believe we need to end it. The military is also top-heavy with senior officers. Therefore, this group should be reduced significantly, which will never be done unless the civilian civil service makes this decision rather than the military bureauracy.
While we do need to have ships to protect our territorial integrity in the soon to be ice-free Northwest Passage in the summers, the current ship-building program once again focuses on guess-who's interests. Many of the proposed ships are not needed to defend Canadian interests. Instead, we only need a much reduced shipbuilding program that focuses on more polar-ready ships for the winters, as well as search and rescue ships. Some of these ships could also be used as scientific research centers on global warming since the polar regions are the ones that undergoing the fastest rates of warming due to the albedo effect (as snow/ice melts to form darker water more solar heat is absorbed).
We definitely do need more ships and aircraft for search and rescue as we have in the last few years seen too many die off all our coasts because of a lack of such equipment and crews. We also need to provide training to our military for the next major earthquake to hit BC, which averages one every 200 years and we are now well overdue. We only need to look to Japan, a country far better prepared to deal with earthquakes than Canada and yet still not prepared enough, to see how important an immediately valuable rescue/rebuilding force would be. Servicemen involved in such a program could help in rescues in the rest of Canada and the world, thereby giving them valuable experience. I would also support UN (not US-led) peacekeeping missions to prevent genocide, such as occurred in Bosnia and Rwanda, but not interference in situations like Haiti etc.
The Cons are so incredibly paranoid and secretive that trying to get a coherent defense policy out of them is an exercise in futility. Best to work on replacing them altogether.
I agree Boom Boom. My proposal would be for a future NDP government. Nothing will change as long as we these Con superhawks.