Would a Swiss military model promote better international relations?

Would their be a market for "Canadian Forces Knives"?

"Selling themselves as mercenaries" is hardly the "Swiss military model" today, outside of a few Swiss soldiers in the Vatican.

And no, it would not be a good thing to premise a country's military on simply allowing its citizens to go abroad and take up arms, causing whatever trouble they like. You want democratic control over a country's military and foreign policy, not a do-it-yourself approach. How long do you think it would be until a Canadian is caught or killed abroad on the wrong side of a war and the other state party (rightfully) criticizes Canada for doing nothing (by design) about the activities of its citizens?

Anyway, the Swiss military model actually consists of a large militia and mandatory military service. Oh, and a proliferation of military weapons kept and maintained in people's homes.

I realize that, and I believe the same would apply to Canada. The good think though is that it would be a useful rhetorical line against foreign invasions. If any Canadian citizen pushes for the creation of an offensive military force to fight some other country, it would be easy enough to tell him that if he sincerely believes in that cause, and he's trained to fight, then he's free to go and volunteer all he wants.

Is that not the case already? In principle, what is there stopping a Canadian from crossing the border and applying to join the US military? So what would be the difference? The main difference from what I can see is that since nearly all Canadians would be in the military, they'd think a little more seriously about voting a militaristic party into power, as is the case in Switzerland.

With that, there aren't many more resources left to develop an offensive force, right? And most of what you describe above is ideal for a defensive war, not an offensive one.

Training solely to defend one's territory from external attack(although there'd have to be an exemption requiring the troops not to be used against internal worker uprisings as they were in 1932 in the U.S when General Macarthur started mowing down the Bonus Army or 1935 when the RCMP mowed down the unemployed legions of the "On To Ottawa trek" movement after their train was ordered stopped in Regina, for example,) is not a bad idea.  We've pretty clearly established at this point that there couldn't possibly be any good reasonf for the U.S. or Canada to military intervene in any other countries.

It would also be helpful if the forces were encouraged to develop more of a "people's army" mentality, as the Dutch army has.

Remember, if this were a citizen-army, then workers themselves would be members. It could prove a little tricky for an army to attack itself.

Would your proposal respect the notion of conscientious objection, machjo?  if so, would it include provisions for "alternative service"(such as work in hospitals or helping rebuild impoverished areas of the country)?

Could you elaborate on what you mean by that? I don't see anything particularly unique about the Dutch military other than its union. If anything, I would peg the Dutch military as being very similar to Canada's in terms of size, budget, capabilities, etc.

Who are Canada's 'natural' enemies? Who wants to invade Canada?

Would this apply to Paul Martin, Rick Hillier and Stephen Harper?

I think that would be a good idea.

I don't believe Canada has any natural enemies. However, I think there are too many nationalists and militarists in Canada who would not tolerate having no military, as a matter of national pride. My guess is, they're also the majority. One solution I could see therefore is, if we cannot eliminate military spending altogether, then let's at least try to direct it towards less destructive ends that the right could accept. For example, a citizen-army would redirect funding from a professional offensive force, and would also keep warrior wannabes busy playing war games and keeping fit while they're at it (helps the health care system). Also, they could receive extra education in a military trade or profession that would have some kind of civilian transferability, funding the right would normally not tolerate but might accept if it's for the military.

Add to this that armchair warriors who usually vote in favour of war might have second thoughts when they become more aware that they themselves form the army that that if war breaks out, they'll be on the front lines too. It brings the fact closer to home.

Yup. If they want war, by all means. Give them the training and the equipment, and off they go.

Somehow I suspect they might have a change of heart.

If we pulled out of NATO, that would leave soldiers from only 49 or so other countries to occupy Afghanistan. I think Ottawa's conformist US-style hawk wannabes would never consider it. And besides, there's a colder war on.

Who'd e stopping them from putting their money where their mouth is, pay their own way to Afghanistan, buy their own weapons, and fight to their hearts' content?

After all, isn't it the conservatives who are always criticizing the nanny state that always wants to pamper us? Well, this would be their chance to prove with conviction that they don't need the nanny state to fight a war in Afghanistan. They could go out and fight with their own hard-earned money. Besides, isn't that what the free market is about?

Again, if you can't beat 'em, join 'em? Instead of attacking their policies, just point out how they themselves are not living up to their own standards.

Okay that's an excellent point you've made at the expense of the shape of every one of the Harpers' heads. I agree an' all.

Actually, I think the idea of a citizen army would likely put the Canadian right in a tight spot. Some on the right do spport foreign invasions, while others are more in favour of domestic defense. I'm sure that such a proposal on the part of a left-wing party would likely through a wedge right between major right wing camps in a big way.

People like Jean Chretien, Paul Martin, Stephen Harper, Tony Blair, Gordon Brown, Angela Merkel, Nicolas Sarkozy, Anders Fogh Rasmussen, George W. Bush and Barack Obama, etc. and all pro war and military nationalist citizens are "useful idiots" (sock puppets) for the arms industry, the oil industry, the mining industry, the Pentagon and the U.S. Defense Department. They want as many wars as possible to last as long as possible. That is how they make their living; through other people dying - the profit of murder and destruction.

What you are saying is very dangerous, Machjo. They don't like to hear that kind of talk. Anything that eats into their profits, I mean.

Oh my. You're not accusing Harper of being a corporate socialist nanny-statist who believes in big military government are you?

No, no, not Harper. He would never increase government spending and put us into deficit, would he? And certainly he would never ask that we be forced to fund a war we never chose. Of course not. And I can't imagine he'd support something and not stand by it with his own cash now would he?

Ok, ok, you'rs right. He would. He did.

We should not forget about the big unions, the CAW gets very pissed off when they don't get those big military contacts.

The may be against the war but they sure like building equipment for the war.

This is one reason I think it's not a good idea for the NDP or any party for that matter to be too closely affiliated with the Union movement. I personally know a few union members and government workers who are about as conservative as they get. And even when they're not particularly ideological, we need to distinguish between unionists on principle and unionists for profit. Some are in the labour unions strictly for how it can benefit them personally, to hell with society.

If let's say the NDP were independent of the union movement, it would make it easier for the NDP to stand on principle even when it could hurt the unions. To take an example, imagine a unionized cigarette factory or seal hunting association.

That is how capitalism breaks "pink" (ie., non Marxist) unions: "If you hurt us (the state and the owners of industry) then you will hurt yourselves (workers) by making yourselves redundant - ie., unemployed.

Marxists would argue "Workers, take over the state and industry. Compensate the capitalists, if possible. Then run the state, industry, economy and society with the talents of the workers and according to the needs of the workers." Nationalize industry. Waging war against the workers of another country is not the will or to the benefit of workers in this or any country.

Another point on unions is that sometimes you could come across a person who's not a union member but is at least sympathetic to progressive ideas, just as you can have a unionized subversive. The NDP would be wise to detach itself from the union movement.

Frmrsldr

Ohh come on, you can not really believe that.

Also, I'm courius. How does the NDP build ties with the potentially non-socialist peace movement while maintaining ties with what Frmrsldr refers to as 'pink' non-marxist unions. Also, how does it build ties with groups that don't call themselves socialist but which have similarities with socialsits none-the-less while keeping its distance from organzations that call themselves socialist but which couldn't be any more distant from socialism?

If the NDP gets too stuck on names alone, then it will climb into bed with any group that calls itself socialist while burning bridges with progressive groups that don't identify themselves as such. Obviously, it would be preferable to burn bridges with groups that call themselves socialist but aren't while maintaining or ven building ties with progressive groups that don't call themselves so.

It's a matter of looking beyond names and labels, and unfortunately I think the NDP has fallen into the trap of names and labels.

Machjo, Canada has nothing near a free labour market. There are countries where free labour markets do exist, but Canada isn't one of them. Since 1982, there have been more than 170 repressive pieces of anti-labour legislations enacted across Canada. If you do believe in free markets, then I think the NDP represents your interests more than the other main stream parties owned and controlled by Bay Street and big money monopolizers. People who vote for Bay Street parties don't really believe in free market economy. Not really.

You jest.

I see the non-coms as the worker class and the coms (officers) as the capitalists. The capitalists are getting Canadian, American, NATO and ISAF countries' soldier and industry workers to fight against Afghan workers and peasants, all for profit. If you lose your life, how much will your family be compensated? If you suffer a permanent or long term physical or emotional injury or disability, how much are you compensated? What kind of medical treatment, counselling, and/or financial assistance/compensation will you get? Is it worth it? How much profit did Lockheed Martin (the world's most profitable arms industry) make last year? Do you own any stocks or shares in this or any arms industry or their subsidiaries? These are General Walter Natynczyk's, NDHQ's and Stephen Harper's (and your) bosses. They elect governments and make sure Defense Departments, Generals and militaries get their "toys" (weapons) to play with.

In the War of 1812, Americans waged a war of aggression against which Canadians defended themselves. The Americans were the "terrorists". They were in the wrong.

The parallel between the Afghan War and the War of 1812 is that this time, Canadians, Americans, British, etc., are waging a war of aggression against which Afghans are defending themselves. This time we are the "terrorists". WE are in the WRONG.

You dodge the question quite well. I believe you parallel between 1812 and Afghanistan is pretty far fetch. You should select a different war in my view.

What questions, in your mind, do I leave unanswered?

In my analogy in comparing the Afghan war with the War of 1812, show me the fault in my logic. Where does my argument logically falter?

Depending on what you mean by 'free labour market', I could agree with you. I can also agree with your last sentence. But notice the part I've bolded. The NDP itself can now win votes not so much because of any radically new idea on its part, but rather because the other options may be worse. That's not exactly the accolade a party should look for.

Interesting experience here: I was discussing the question of adopting a Swiss military model for Canada, and he'd argued that it would be a bad idea because too many are 'liberal pussies' (his words, not mine).

When I'd brought up the whole idea of personal responsibility (to defend the country in this case), which I thought was a hallmark of conservative apologetics, oops, but the military is an exception. Most people don't understand military strategy, as he argued, and so we need a professional force to be able to exert our influence abroad, not a citizen-army to defend Canadian soil at home. The rest of the population have the duty to fund this force well.

Wow, he seemed to through all of his conservative talking points about personal responsibility and such right out the window, all in support of a big military bureaucracy, the very thing conservatives would usually oppose for anything other than the military.

I was surprised. I'd have thought the right would have supported the idea of personal responsibility for national defense, only to come across a comment that the general population can't be trusted with the defense of the country. So much for democracy when you can't trust the people.

Perhaps this is something that really could be a touchy issue for the right. I could see some on the right supporting such an idea, but bear in mind they're also likely to be more about personal responsibility and grassroots participation, not about taking over other countries. The other right would likely fight tooth and nail against this since it wold eliminate the country's ability to wage war abroad.

Maybe this could be the issue that could break the backbone of the right.

Really, you think that shit will float here?

I don't think anyone is going to buy into soldiers keeping their assault rifles and machineguns at home or mandatory military service.

Those kind of things can't be adopted over night. I don't think Canada is ready for that, it's just not us.

Doctrine wise having a defensive only force has many draw backs.

Wether one likes it or not the Government uses the military as a political tool as much as a defenseive one, if not more.

Machjo wrote:Interesting experience here:I was discussing the question of adopting a Swiss military model for Canada, and he'd argued that it would be a bad idea because too many are 'liberal pussies' (his words, not mine).

Really, you think that shit will float here?

This guy has already floated the idea of selling our medical system abroad.  His turdish offerings are taken up for debate far too quickly.

Yep, george

I never said I'd agreed with his idea. essentially, he'd probably consider me to be among them too, if that makes you feel any better. My point was how he'd so quickly abandoned his own supposed ideals to maintain a military force capable of foreign deployment.

Why should we need anything other than a defensive force. You guys sound about as bad as the right.

I see. So just for the sake of argument, I assume that your ideology teaches you that if a foolish person presents 9 foolish ideas and one good one, that you must reject all of them?

Does it therefore follow from your ideology that if a wise man presets 9 brilliant ideas and one foolish one, you must accept all of his ideas?

If so, then you're suggesting that an idea should be accepted or rejected not on its own merits but rather on the source of the idea. That's just plain illogical nonsense and I'd want nothing to do with that kind of thinking.

Also, do you honestly believe that I myself agree 100% with every idea I present. Sometimes I'll present an idea more as a brainstorm than as something I myself am committed to. So I take it that you sensor yourself out of fear of being ridiculed for an idea you may be curious about, never expressing any idea unless you're fully convinced that you agree with it first or that it agrees with others in your circle? That seems to e very limited thinking in my opinion.

You seem pretty defensive in your posts here and below.

Just because people didn't support you're theory doesn't mean you need to get your nose bent out of shape.

I'll tell you why your defense only theory doesn't work tomorrow if you're still interested.

I have no issue with anyone tearing down my arguments. In fact, even I am not totally convinced about the idea myself. My issue was with a post above suggesting that my ideas should be considered not on their own merits but rather on who I am or what I've said before. That's just plain illogical. Debunk the idea all you want, but on its own merits not on who I am or what I may have said before or what I may stand for in your mind.

Now as for an offensive force, yes I'll take my words back on that front. There is a legitimate argument for an offensive force, and generally speaking I'd choose a professional army as opposed to a citizen-militia.

My concern tough is with such an offensive capability being abused. So how do we strike the fine line between an ability to project offensive force and the responsibility to exercise restraint in its use?

One possible solution I could see would be the gradual replacement of a national military force with an international one directly under UN or some other similar international authority (though it would need to e an organization we could all trust).

If that's not possible, then maybe a citizen-force is a next-best alternative. So while I would normally favour a professional force over a citizen-force, I could make an exception if that professional force is under the total control of one national government, thus allowing it to use that force for its own national interests as opposed to those of the peoples of the world.

I guess another way to look at it is that my first choice would be a professional international military force. My second choice would be a national citizen-militia like what the Swiss have. And my last choice would be a national professional military force, owing to the lack of checks and balances in ensuring that it be used in the best long-term interests of the human race as opposed to the short-term interests of only one country.

During the cold war, it's been said in recent years that the Sovs actually did prefer for buffer countries to be militarily neutral. It was  western countries that pushed for non-neutrality in those countries on the Sovs front doorsteps. And now that the cold war is over, we still have NATO in Europe and pushing into countries farther East, even though western leaders told Gorbachev and Sovs that this wouldn't occur if German re-unification was to happen.  The lead NATO dog is the only superpower with nukes stationed on foreign soil and allegedly protecting Europeans from a cold war threat that doesn't exist anymore. Warmongering plutocrats in North America have been pushing for a colder war ever since 1991.

And this is one area where I run into problems. Yes, I prefer a professional force over a citizen-force, but only if I can trust the government to use that force responsibly. Otherwise, I'd prefer a citizen-force. Sure a citizen-force has the disadvantage of being an ineffective offensive force, but when we don't trust our government to use the offensive capabilities of a professional force responsibly, then I'd be willing to sacrifice our offensive capabilities at least until we can establish a professional force with the appropriate checks and balances to ensure that it use its offensive capabilities responsibly.

Again, it's not that I prefer a citizen-force to a professional force in principle, but rather pragmatically that I think it better to have such a force for now until maybe some kind of international and neutral professional force could eventually replace it.

Another issue I see with a national professional force is redundancy. Each country has its own force, yet how frequently is it deployed in most countries? Sharing a force between many countries could save much money, demilitarize the world significantly, and still provide more than adequate protection.

By whom?

Oh, that's interesting - you're claiming that the Soviet Union wanted East Germany and Czechoslovakia to be be neutral?

Or more like a Swiss watch/army knife?

Forgot chocolate.

Ah yes, Von Clausewitz.

This should come as no surprise: A defense oriented military is the only morally, legally and logically supportable and consistent approach.

According to the Nuremberg Trials, the Nuremberg Principles, the Geneva Conventions, the U.N. Charter and other international treaties, agreements, protocols, laws, etc., a war of aggression is illegal. Regime change is illegal. Militarizing human rights and then using war as an excuse to defend/protect/promote them is illegal. George W. Bushs' Strike First Doctrine (just like wars of aggression) is not only insupportable according to accepted international law and universal, objective morality, it is also a logical contradiction; an oxymoron.

How can the argument "We are defending ourselves by waging a war of offense (an offensive war; a war of aggression)" be logically consistent? Impossible.

How is that different from the current situation where NATO is a sock puppet of the Pentagon and the U.S.A. fights wars wherever the hell it wants, international laws be damned?

If you read my most recent posts (above) this begs the question, "Why do we need things like 'offensive force' and 'offensive capabilities'?" The purpose of the U.N. as stated in its Charter (Mission Statement, if you will) is to end war.

USian Charles Gati of Stanford U.

Oh Berlin was going to split up either way. And Soviet reasons for the Wall in the beginning might surprise you, too.

According to Gati, Czechoslovakians were more left-leaning politically than Hungarians were. From doing research on the matter he says that the Sovs were more willing to negotiate military neutrality for more countries than Austria etc. But the west and NATO leaders never met them half way. The US was more willing to pump propaganda into Eastern block countries using tools like Radio Free Europe and the like. I believe Gati even suspects that the west supported pro-Nazi fascists in some of the buffer countries who collaborated during Nazi occupations. Gladio was a story that broke in Europe in 1991 but was a back-pager in North American newspapers then. In any event, the west was happy piping propaganda into those countries but were never prepared to support protesters in 1956 Hungary with actual military backup. The cold war was much more profitable on one side of the divide than the other. The Yanks and Brits had a money-maker in the red menace. American Chalmers Johnson said that US and NATO countries were taken totally by surprise with the end of the cold war.

US and British hawks lacked any and all imagination for prospects of a post-cold war era of peace and prosperity. What theyve tried to do since is to re-create a legitimate enemy of the same Islamic Gladios who were last on the CIA's payroll in Central Asia during the  anticommunist jihad against secular socialism. After the Sovs pulled out of Afghanistan in 1989 and the Wall came down, justification for massive military spending became harder to sell to Congress. Americans need to be kept in a constant state of fear. Keynesian-militarism in the US is a kind of extortion racket. And extortionists need something to threaten their marks with. Today it's not the red menace, who never intended on taking over the world as many millions of taxpayers in the west were led to believe - today it's false flag terrorism.

What is a defence oriented military look like? I hear this term a lot, I just never actually see any details on it.

Like Canada's. If we don't get those proposed intercontinental cargo planes. It's lacking physical assets and a political and military leadership mindset (plans) for a rapid deployment/offensive war capability anywhere in the world.

The physical assets and the military and political doctrine revolve around purely self-defense capabilities.

As in the past, if Canadian governments want to deploy troops on U.N. peacekeeping missions, then other U.N. countries will have to provide the transport.

Machjo, re your post #29, which seems to have been cribbed from another discussion? Out of nowhere you are referring to some unnamed "he".

Presenting the words of another person as part of your argument is disingenuous. Quoting language such as "liberal pussies", then distancing yourself from such language, is a flawed tactic. For the record, don't say stuff like that on babble. And when you do (see, I'm being funny now) at least have the ovaries to defend your choice as the only possible way you ever could have presented such an "argument". That last bit was sarcasm.

Machjo, you seem to think that war is connected to "international relations". It is not. War is connected to international relations in the same way the big scary bully in the schoolyard who's grabbed your shirt and is rearing back to punch you is related to your "group of friends".

As other babblers have pointed out, supporting war (both ideologically and with the military and both) is beyond the official party politics (repubs/dems and cons/libs) that govern both the US and Canada. It's about the war industry, money, profit-making and cultural imperialism. 

I am still confused? What are defensive capabilities? Are there are any countries we can look at for guidance?

That's up to the government to decide. How do yo stop a Government from using the military for unethical things? I would say vote the right party to office.

I absolutely love the idea of the UN and a world wide army of protectors. In practice it doesn't work. The UN is fucked. Too much politics. Too much greed.
NATO isn't much better. Still a lot of politics, still a lot of greed. many NATO countries send their army to places like Afghanistan and Iraq to make the US or the big Three happy all the while bending over backwards to keep them out of harms way so they don't face a shit storm at home. It's paying lip service.

I'm a big sci-fi nerd. In the series I am reading a native American warlord rises up and starts world war 6 or something. He unites all the countries on earth under one single "party" and then humans explore space. He becomes the Emperor of earth. They realize while cruising around space there is no God then come home and wipe out religion and worship science and the planet instead because they felt religion caused much of the fighting on earth.
I know that's far fetched but my point is unless everyone unites under one banner or country [scary], the idea of an international security force will always be plagued with a host of problems and never work.

In a conventional war a citizen only army like I think you are suggesting would get obliterated by a professional force.

Personally I think we should pull out of NATO as it is not a neutral alliance. And no I see no oxymoron in the phrase 'neutral alliance'. For me, a neutral alliance means an alliance whereby all parties agree to defend each other against aggression, but which will not support each other's aggression against others and might even attack their own allies under such conditions. Essentially, to me a 'neutral alliance' would be one whereby each member of the alliance is expected to live by the highest moral standards. Also, another aspect of neutrality would be that any country could join, and not a select group unlike the case with NATO.

All that said, we need to consider that NATO does not have an international force of its own, but simply gains support from sometimes hesitant allies. Though I'd prefer a truly international force, or better yet a global force, as opposed to a simple alliance, I'd still choose an alliance over no international co-operation whatsoever as that allows us to reduce our military spending somewhat. Would the non-aligned movement be something to look at? Maybe. A UN force? Maybe. But certainly not something as biased as NATO. NATO is a disaster and needlessly provocative and we should leave it.

All that said, if it comes down to a choice between a biased alliance like NATO and no formal alliance at all, then no alliance might be preferable. Like they say,with friends like that, who needs enemies.

WWII? We had no moral obligation to help other countries against Nazi oppression? I know that in the last few decades our reasons for war have been poor indeed, but let's not forget that in history there have been legitimate reasons for offensive action against an enemy country.

The trick is to find the right balance. A professional force certainly has an advantage on that front, as long as it's controlled by an authority we can trust to use it responsibly. And that's where a global force under the direct authority of an international body such as the UN is one we could support.

In the case of a citizen-force such as Switzerland's, it had proven useless in terms of helping its neighbours against Nazi aggression. On that front it does have its limitations. On the other hand, such a force is a highly effective defensive force to the degree that the Nazis did not dare set foot on Swiss soil. So while a professional force has a clear advantage over a citizen-army in terms of defending its allies, a citizen army has the advantage of not being able to be used for sly political gain. So when you can trust the authority behind it, a professional force is preferable to a citizen army. But when you can't, then a citizen army is preferable to a professional force. If the force is to be under the exclusive control of a national government, then I'd prefer a citizen army just because I do't trust a professional force under the command of a completely sovereign national entity.

Machjo what is your definition of a citizen army?

You keep refering to a citizen army vs a professional one, I'm not exactly sure what you're talking about.  Describe how this citizen army functions. Are you talking about every citizen being a trained soldier and coming together once a month for training, once a year?

As for the Germans not daring to set foot in Switzerland, why would they?  They knew the Swiss were staying out of the fight.  the German army probably said "We'll come back later, we have more pressing matters to deal with".  Do you think if the Axis armies won they would continue to leave the Swiss alone?

Wow, that is quite the....um......interesting  internally generated thought terminating cliche, combined with...well...an (un)acknowleged hyprocritical positoning, at best. 

First, a neutral alliance would actually mean no aggression for any reason, where all things would have to be equal. Or there would be no neutral state of co-existence between. What you described was a mutal protection pact, that would breakdown if mutual concerns, or ideologies were not met.

Now...that leads us into your triumphant exclamation of "highest moral standards". Really? You do not see what you just stated? It is problematic just on the surface tension of things, let alone how out of control it is against human social justice and equity, below the surface ick factor.

On good faith you have perhaps not thought about it, indepthly, I will ask:

1. What happens to all the people's in the said country alliance differing moral standards, than the majority?

2. Who is going to be the judge and abritrator of what is the highest moral standards?

3. Why do you believe someone has a right to impose their moral standards upon another?

4. How are people going to be taugt this higher moral standard?

Then let's break that paragraph down further.

You stated the alliance parameters would be of highest moral standards, and yet you then on to state; any country could join said neutral alliance, and it would not be just a "select group".

Um.... of course it would be a select group, as you stated that all who were accepted to be part of the "neutral alliance" would have to be of high moral standard. A standard denoted by the dominant hierarchy  of  the imposed measure of  "high moral standings".

Sounds pretty freaking like a Hitlerish alliance to me.....as opposed to a "neutral alliance" or indeed an alliance of any kind.

 Which makes this statement of yours below pretty damn problematic, eh:

as this international force would be also apparently operating on the principals of the highest moral standards.

won't bother with dissecting the rest of your post, as I am not sure you understand what an actual social justice disaster is, given your discription of what you percieve a non-disaster would be.

Canada does not need a defensive army because our elite has already given control over our resources to Washington.  We need to have a war capable army so that the Americans don't complain bitterly about Canada getting a free ride on North American security.

With the integration of our defence forces officer corp into NORAD and NATO our only international role is to follow the American lead. We are once again a junior partner in an imperial empire.  Ready Aye Ready 

Fair enough, Remind. Though I'd imagine there must be at least some minimum standard all could agree to, such as respecting basic international laws and treaties.

Yes, by citizen-army, i'm talking about an army made up of the people through compulsory service.

I do agree that a professional force could likely storm into another country just as easily as a kid with a baseball bat could knock down a wasp nest. However, entering the country and staying in the country are two different things. If that kid then decides to stomp on the wasp nest, he could probably kill a few wasps, make things difficult for them, and come out of it alive himself. It still doesn't change the fact that he'll come out of it hurt enough to wonder if it was all worth it. Because of that, he'd do it only once if at all.

Now as for Rabblers marching 50k with a 30lbs rucksack, I think it would depend on their motivation. One man would e willing to do so to meet the enemy. Another would be willing to do so to meet an injured and stranded hiker or climber.

Take civilian search and rescue workers for example. Their jobs can be just as dangerous and strenuous as that of a soldier. But it doesn't change the fact that while some people woud not mind that risk to help others, they're not willing to do it to hurt others.

I'm not a pacifist myself, but do recognize that pacifism is common in the NDP. A simple solution, as presented by one poster above, would be to offer the option of military or civil service. After all, society needs not just soldiers, but cooks, drivers, paramedics, search and rescue techs, etc. While one person would willingly run 50k to engage the enemy, another would willingly do the same to meet the injured. Each is important, and so why not exploit their natural motivation?

Also, I suspect at least some NDPers (though probably a very small number, though I could be wrong) would be willing to serve in a Swiss-style citizen army with the option of serving in a civil service force as an alternative, if it meant reducing Canada's offensive capabilities and replacing them instead with a more defensive focus.

Machjo are you in favour of disengaging from NORAD and NATO and pursuing an independent foreign policy?  And if we disengage can your army defeat the americans if they decide to retaiate?  And if we don't disengage then aren't we merely a junior partner who isn't an independent actor anyways.

The Swiss model is based on neutrality and for Canada neutrality by definition is an impossibility while a member of NATO.

I'm certainly in favour of disengaging from NORAD and NATO simply owing to their biased positions. As for an independent foreign policy, no I'm not in favour of that; the world is too complex for Canada to just go it alone. I am however in favour of what we might call active neutrality. Sweden might be an example of that in that though it doesn't take sides in conflicts, it's still engaged in trying to help other countries none-the-less.

I'll admit I don't have a clear understanding or definition of active neutrality, but vaguely put, it suggests that we are not isolationist, we do value forming friendships and alliances where possible, but not at the expense of justice and neutrality.

Why would the US retaliate. We're not talking about the Canadian army storming across the US border here. Consider too that many Canadians and Americans have intermarried with families living on both sides of the border. The US has become somewhat dependent on Canada economically. It would be political and economic suicide for the US to attack Canada without good reason.

I can't imagine that the US would invade Canada. Quite honestly, I don't even think Canada really needs a military force. We really don't have that many enemies. The proposal of adopting a citizen-force would be more as a second-best alternative to a military force entrapped in a provocative alliance.

I'm for alliances in principle, but certainly not NATO.Canada should not disengage from the world stage, but ought to be a neutral participant similar to Sweden for example.

In some respects, I just see a citizen-force as a preferable alternative to an aggressive professional army that might not always respect international law. Technically, the UN granted Canada permission to enter Afghanistan but not Iraq. Yet Canada did have a debate on entering Iraq, and we might not be so lucky next time we come across an illegal war. A citizen-force would essentially reduce Canada's overseas offensive capabilities.

In some respects, a citizen-army has no choice but to be neutral since its offensive capabilities are generally far inferior to those of a professional army. Only its defensive capabilities are truly enhanced.Looking at it that way, adopting a citizenarmy would essentially force Canada into neutrality.

International laws and treaties are not moral equivalencies, they are actual laws and treaties.

moral =  the judgment of the goodness or badness of human action and character

As I said in that post, it would be having a military for the purpose of self-defense. If it's countries you want, it would be countries that haven't invaded other countries in (at least) the 20th century (ie., at least modern times). Like Switzerland, Sweden, Iran, Nepal, Bhutan, Tibet, Vatican City, San Marino, Monaco, Liechtenstein, Andorra, Luxemburg, Goa, Singapore, Macao, Hong Kong, Malaysia(?), the Philippines, Pacific and Oceana island and Caribbean island countries. Do some research and you will probably find some countries in Africa, the Americas, Asia and some more European countries that fit this description.

Actually, that is the policy of NATO. The only countries it seems to be isolating are Russia, China, India, Iran and Venezuela.

That contradicts the initial argument of this page.

An ounce (gold) of prevention is worth a pound (British currency) of cure. World War II was preventable. German, British, American and Canadian industrialists funded and supported Hitler and the NSDAP. In 1941 when Nazi Germany invaded the Soviet Union, many in the U.S. (and I would imagine some in Canadian government) expressed the opinion that the ideal set of circumstances would be for Nazi Germany and Soviet Russia to destroy themselves, thus ridding the world of both nazism and communism.

During the 1935-36 Abyssinian War, the French and British diplomats Hoare and Laval, toyed with the idea of granting Italy 2/3 of Abyssinia and allowing the remaining rump portion to be independent. France, Britain and the League of Nations could have done more. For instance, near Abyssinia and Italian Somaliland, there were the French and British colonies of French Somaliland (Djibouti) and British Somaliland (Somalia). Both the British and French had naval ships in the area. They could have imposed the League of Nations blockade against supplies to Italian troops - they didn't. In the end, Mussolini ignored the Hoare Laval offer, the naval blockade never materialized, and the war was concluded with Italy conquering all of Abyssinia.

Concerning Japan from 1931 - 1941, economic and political cooperation could very well have prevented the War in the Pacific. From 1936, U.S. Marines, the U.S. Navy and airmen of the AVG (American Volunteer Group) were either sparring with the Imperial Japanese Army and Air Force in China or were being attacked (as a result of being in "harm's way") in China.

From 1939-41, The U.S. Embargo Act (1939) on strategic materials to Japan and actions like the U.S. Navy performing military manoeuvres in Japan's offshore home waters, were done intentionally to piss off the Japanese and help force Japan's hand to attack America.

Did U.S. intelligence and President Roosevelt have advanced knowledge of Pearl Harbor? You bet. The attack on Pearl Harbor was exactly what they wanted.

I agree with you kropotkin. Canada doesn't even need a standing conventional army to protect itself from a possible U.S. invasion. Think of our worker and peasant brethren in Vietnam and Afghanistan. Think (movie) Red Dawn. Canadian guerrilla insurgent minutemen armed with whatever weapons they can get their hands on can tie down American Imperial Empire troops for eternity.

For all you War of 1812 fans out there, is there a rallying cry like: "Remember the Alamo!", we can use?

Frmsldr

Many of the countries you listed have a high degree of offensive capabilities such as Iran, Sweden, Switzerland and Malaysia.

Most the countries you listed have more offensive tanks thank Canada:

a. Singapore has 500 tanks

b. Malaysia has 80 tanks

c. Switzerland has 224 tanks

d. Iran has over 500 tanks

Sweden is also apart of the ISAF mission in Afghanistan and by all your accounts thus as invaded another nation.

I also believe Tibet and Hong Kong both belong to China now.

Frmsldr

How many insurgents from the list you provided died beacuse they were lacking proper equipment and material?

Our worker and peasant bretheren in both Vietnam and Afghanistan had to be provided arms and aid from other countries before they effective.

I think one of our stooges in Ottawa suggested new submarines for Canada's navy. And it makes sense since the country is surrounding by water on most of the coastlines. Their bosses in Warshington said no way to Canadian subs in Canadian arctic waters though. They said they didn't want us interfering with US subs in Canadian waters. And our weak and ineffective colonial administrators in the old line party backed down right away over the matter.

It just seems to me that the idea of Canada's weak and subjugated colonial administrativeships in Ottawa commanding a bigger military is a visual oxymoron for me. I can't picture it.

O.K., so these countries have x number of tanks. So what? Whether a tank is an offensive weapon or not depends on how it is deployed. Iran also has intermediate range missiles that can reach countries in the Middle East. Again, whether they are "defensive" or "offensive" depends on whether they are used to shoot down foreign ground attack or fighter/attack aircraft either approaching or in Iranian airspace when Iran appears to be in very imminent danger of attack or after an actual attack or if they are used against foreign land forces on Iranian soil or foreign naval vessels, after Iran has been attacked.

Singapore, Switzerland and Malaysia having tanks doesn't mean an offensive capability. It would be pretty hard for Switzerland to deploy tanks over the alps and who would they attack and why?

Singapore is an island and Malaysia is an archipelago, except for the Malay Peninsula. Do you think Malaysia is going to attack Thailand? In order for these tanks to be weapons of offense, Singapore and Malaysia would need a commensurate number of naval landing craft. Again, who do you think they drawing up military scenarios to invade?

Tibet, Hong Kong and Macao are grey areas. Especially Honk Kong and Macao - they have an ill-defined semi-autonomous status. Tibet also, but to a lesser extent. Have you heard any accounts of Tibetans being drafted into the Chinese military?

Concerning Sweden wrt Afghanistan, I take your point. Although one could split hairs and investigate whether they have conducted aggressive combat actions or solely have done monitoring and humanitarian work. You can drop Luxemburg from this list as they have sent two troops (last I heard) to Afghanistan. One is a Corporal and the other is Major. They are embeded with Belgian troops(!)

Minuteman Patriot or Benedict Arnold?

What's your point?

So Canada could upgrade it current equipment for defensive purposes? New tanks and APCs?

I believe the Romans thought it was impossible to take Elephants over the Alps at one point about 2200 years ago.

I believe Singapore and Malaysia have a number of landing craft that are capable of deploying tanks from.

So WRT Afghanistan there is a difference if your aggressive invading or just supporting aggressive invading operations. That is nice to know.

When you were in the military, did you do any defensive operations (I am assuming you were combat arms type)? I am only asking because according to most military doctrine I have read and study, defending armies usually go onto offensive operations.

My point is hundreds of thousands of our worker and peasant brethren were needlessly killed because they lacked the proper equipment.

You most be a Stalinist type, "one man carries the rifle, the other man carries the bullets......"

Yep. Some weapons could not possibly be defensive. Like nuclear ICBMs, intercontinental strategic bombers, nuclear powered/nuclear armed (capable) submarines, aircraft carriers, battleships, battlecruisers/cruisers, battle destroyers, etc., for example. Do you think Canada is planning on invading the U.S.A?

That was the point I made about some weapons are not necessarily offensive in themselves but in how they are (or planned to be) used.

Again, what countries do you think these countries are planning to attack/invade? In the case of Malaysia (being an archipelago) it would need to maintain amphibious communications and military logistical support if it were invaded.

No, there isn't. But that isn't the argument I made. My argument was a conditional one (and I can look it up or you can inform me whether Sweden is engaging in combat or combat support, as I honestly don't know) that if Sweden was only engaging in humanitarian activities and/or monitoring to support these activities, then it wasn't engaging in a war of aggression.

When I was in the military, I participated in both offensive and defensive operations. I was in the armored "trade" (011), in fact. Naturally, they did emphasize the offense over defense.

Now we're down to semantics: words, ideas and concepts and their meanings and definitions:

1. Defensive War: When a country is attacked/invaded/occupied by another/other countries, war is fought by the attacked country on and only on that country's sovereign territory.

2. Offensive War: When a country attacks (very important point, will discuss shortly)/invades/occupies another/other countries.

Example 1 (Offensive War): Canada is invaded by the U.S.A., Canada "defends" itself by launching C-F/A-18 Hornet squadron counterstrikes against U.S. factories (located within U.S.A. sovereign territory) that manufacture attack helicopters/components, missile(s)/components, fighter, ground attack, bomber aircraft/bombs/components, radar system/components, naval yards that construct warships and naval weapons/components, tanks/components, SPGs/components, APCs/components, artillery/shells/components, small arms/ammunition/components, etc., thus crippling the U.S. war effort and shortening the war.

No, sorry, this is a war of offense or aggression and is illegal/unjust.

Example 2 Fighting a Defensive War 'aggressively': As an attacked/invaded country's forces, you can slice through enemy formations like a knife through hot butter with tanks, APCs, SPGs, outflank the enemy, cut off his supply lines, attack his reserve forces base camps, etc., and capture hundreds of thousands of his forces. You can use massed artillery, SPGs and thousands of tactical bomber aircraft and attack helicopters to bomb the shit out of the enemy PROVIDED this is done and only done within the territorial sovereign area of the attacked/invaded country. Same with the navy; destroyers and conventional submarines can wreak hell with the enemy's navy and naval landing forces, PROVIDED this is done and only done within the attacked/invaded country's sovereign offshore waters.

A war of defense is supported by the Nuremberg Principles, Geneva Conventions, U.N. Charter, etc.

However, as Abraham Lincoln would put it, "If the better angels of our nature were in command of our souls, then there would be no war of any kind."

Sorry, double post.

Again, I don't understand your point.

Because Uncle Sam with all his cool hi tech weaponry can kill hundreds of thousands of Canadians, it's better for Canadians to roll over, kiss ass and suck up to the man if the U.S.A. invades? That would be the prudent and humanitarian thing to do, save those hundreds of thousands of lives by not defending if attacked?

Maybe Canada should simply disarm itself.

Maybe it should. Politically though, many if not most Canadians have become excessively nationalistic and militaristic, so this is not likely to happen. The questions then become:

1. How to demilitarize the Canadian mind, and

2. Until the Canadian mind is demilitarized, how do we redirect that militarist mindset towards less destructive ends?

I think until some kind of world police force could be established to replace our national military forces, transforming our national military into a citizen-army along the Swiss model could help to redirect our military spending from offensive to defensive capabilities.

Also, as for counter-offensive capabilities, we also need to consider mass psychology. Even if Canada were not capable of launching attacks beyond its border and it were invaded, as long as we can fight within our borders, let's not forget that countries around the world would likely turn against our enemy, if not militarily then at least diplomatically and economically, thus making such a war simply not worth the cost for that enemy.

In fact, we'd likely gain support among the enemy itself, as is often the case when a country is attacked.

An interesting idea you can read up on is 'lawfare'.

Could you please give a citation for this statement.  I don't believe that to be the case but I am always willing to look at new research.

Frmsldr

Your list of offensive and defensive vehicles is quite amazing. It appears you are confusing capabilities with doctrine, domestic and foreign policy? You can use nuclear power submarines for defensive roles however typically electric/diesel submarines are more effective.

Reference the Alps and the elephants, it would not be difficult for the Swiss to send their vehicles over the Alps to invade another country if they so desire to. Again this is my point, you are confusing capabilities with intent.

WRT to Sweden being in Afghanistan, they have either invaded and are providing supporting to other invading nations or they have been invited to Afghanistan. You can not have it both ways, Sweden is part of ISAF just as Canada is.

Your examples of offensive and defensive wars are very poor at best, and I am not familiar with any parts of the Nuremberg Principles, Geneva Conventions, U.N. Charter that says defending countries are not allowed to commit offensive operations against an invading county on the invading country sovereign territorial areas.

WRT to "Canadian guerrilla insurgent minutemen" and the examples you provide, there were countless deaths because these men and women were not properly trained and equipped. The same would happen in your Canadian/US scenario. I am not saying Canadians should give up without a fight, however the lost of Canadian lives would appalling according to your point of view.

Machjo

Can you provide an recent example for post #87

As for our Alamos how about:

Remember Chocolate Laura  

or

At Lundy's Lane The Invaders Made No Gain

Macho macho man....I just wanna be a macho man....

Really, I thought you were a macho man already.

As noted.  The "Neutral defensive" Swiss are still invaded Afghanistan and commited war crimes by being involved in the phoney imperial war for oil.  [Frmrsldr it's working!]

The Swiss army still has a carade of 5000 some professional soldiers.  Peacekeeping isn't an entity unto itself in the military.

Having a citizen army like you are explaining doesn't make the military some type of moral force of goodness and ethics and career soldiers are some kind of war mongering invasion force.

"Citizen Soldiers" from Canada deploy to Afghanistan in the hundreds [At one point 800 of the 2200 were part time soldiers].  Over a thousand will deploy in task forces for the G8 and G20 in June.

I think what you want is to see the Canadian military used less on international deployments.  The way for that to happen is politics and not using the line of though that if we don't have planes or boats we can't invade anyone.

If push came to shove we would just hitch a ride with someone else and it would cost us 4 times as much. 

Oh webgear, you are just soooooooooo cutesy wootsy puddin and pie. Cause we all just love sexism in the morning......

Oh remind, bite me.

Can dish, but not receive eh!

Blahhh I am not going to waste anymore time with you unless you have something productive or thoughful to add, which I doubt is highly likely.

I like the direction this argument is going:

An armed Canada could be seen as a potential threat to the U.S.A. Using the Bush Doctrine of Strike First, a future U.S. President could "defend" the U.S.A. by launching a pre-emptive invasion of Canada.

On the other hand, a disarmed Canada could be seen as an invitation for invasion by a future militaristic U.S. administration that believes war is an extension of state policy, "diplomacy or 'peace' by another means." Canada's got a lot of water (and other natural resources) and Uncle Sam is very, very thirsty.

Canadian Bacon, anyone?