Would a Swiss military model promote better international relations?

116 posts / 0 new
Last post
Frmrsldr

Webgear wrote:

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.Wink

Maysie Maysie's picture

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. 

Webgear

Frmrsldr wrote:

Webgear wrote:

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

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

 

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

Jingles

Quote:
The liberties of a people are in danger from a large [url=http://www.constitution.org/afp/brutus10.htm]standing army[/url], not only because the rulers may employ them for the purposes of supporting themselves in any usurpations of power, which they may see proper to exercise, but there is great hazard, that an army will subvert the forms of the government, under whose authority, they are raised, and establish one, according to the pleasure of their leader.

We are informed, in the faithful pages of history, of such events frequently happening...an army, lead by Julius Cesar, who was appointed to the command, by the constitutional authority of that commonwealth. He changed it from a free republic, whose fame had sounded, and is still celebrated by all the world, into that of the most absolute despotism. A standing army effected this change, and a standing army supported it through a succession of ages, which are marked in the annals of history, with the most horrid cruelties, bloodshed, and carnage; — The most devilish, beastly, and unnatural vices, that ever punished or disgraced human nature.

PraetorianFour

Quote:

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?

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.

Quote:

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 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.

Quote:

My second choice would be a national citizen-militia like what the Swiss have.
Canada isn't prepared to accept that.

How many babblers would be okay with me yelling at them to wake up at 5 am having them run 10 KM or march 30 KM with 50 pounds in the back, feeding them food that dogs won't eat half the time taking their weekends away for punishment and all around making their days and nights suck [While on training]. telling them they are providing the country with freedom meanwhile taking away many of theirs.
I'm thinking not many. This isn't to say the Swiss [or the like] are better or tougher or anything, Canadian soceity just won't accept this sort of thing.

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

Machjo

Frmrsldr wrote:

Machjo wrote:

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.

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?

 

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.

Machjo

Frmrsldr wrote:

Machjo wrote:

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.

 

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.

 

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.

PraetorianFour

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?

remind remind's picture

Machjo wrote:
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.

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:

Quote:
 Though I'd prefer a truly international force, or better yet a global force, as opposed to a simple alliance,

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.

kropotkin1951

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 

Machjo

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.

Machjo

PraetorianFour wrote:

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?

 

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

Machjo

PraetorianFour wrote:
How many babblers would be okay with me yelling at them to wake up at 5 am having them run 10 KM or march 30 KM with 50 pounds in the back, feeding them food that dogs won't eat half the time taking their weekends away for punishment and all around making their days and nights suck [While on training]. telling them they are providing the country with freedom meanwhile taking away many of theirs. I'm thinking not many. This isn't to say the Swiss [or the like] are better or tougher or anything, Canadian soceity just won't accept this sort of thing. In a conventional war a citizen only army like I think you are suggesting would get obliterated by a professional force.
 

 

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?

Machjo

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.

kropotkin1951

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.

Machjo

kropotkin1951 wrote:

Machjo are you in favour of disengaging from NORAD and NATO and pursuing an independent foreign policy?

 

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.

 

 

Quote:
And if we disengage can your army defeat the americans if they decide to retaiate?

 

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.

 

Quote:
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 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.

Machjo

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.

Machjo

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.

remind remind's picture

Machjo wrote:
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.

 

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

Frmrsldr

Webgear wrote:

Frmrsldr wrote:

Webgear wrote:

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

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

 

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

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.

Frmrsldr

Machjo wrote:

Also, another aspect of neutrality would be that any country could join, and not a select group unlike the case with NATO.

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

Machjo wrote:

... I'd still choose an alliance over no international co-operation whatsoever as that allows us to reduce our military spending somewhat.

That contradicts the initial argument of this page.

 

Frmrsldr

Machjo wrote:

 

 

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.

 

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.

Webgear

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.

Webgear

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.

 

 

Fidel

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.

Frmrsldr

Webgear wrote:

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.

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(!)Laughing

Frmrsldr

Webgear wrote:

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.

Minuteman Patriot or Benedict Arnold?

What's your point?

Webgear

 

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.

Webgear

Frmrsldr wrote:

Webgear wrote:

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.

Minuteman Patriot or Benedict Arnold?

What's your point?

 

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......"

Frmrsldr

Webgear wrote:
 

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

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?Wink

Webgear wrote:

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

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.

Webgear wrote:

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

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.

Webgear wrote:

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

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.

Webgear wrote:

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.

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."

 

Frmrsldr

Sorry, double post.

Frmrsldr

Webgear wrote:

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......"

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?

Frmrsldr

kropotkin1951 wrote:

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 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.Wink

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

Sven Sven's picture

Maybe Canada should simply disarm itself.

Machjo

Sven wrote:

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.

Machjo

Frmrsldr wrote:

Machjo wrote:

Also, another aspect of neutrality would be that any country could join, and not a select group unlike the case with NATO.

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

Machjo wrote:

 

You're sure about that?So if I understand correctly, as long as a country respects international law, it's free to join? And if it violates international law, it suffers sanctions from its allies? I don't think NATO had placed any sanctions against the US when it invaded Iraq in spite of the fact that the UN itself had stated it was an illegal war.

Quote:
... I'd still choose an alliance over no international co-operation whatsoever as that allows us to reduce our military spending somewhat.

That contradicts the initial argument of this page.

 

Not entirely. If we're going to have a professional military force, then I'd rather we have a small one within an alliance than a bloated one. However, it would need to be an alliance that abides strictly to international laws and avoids any grey area in the law.

If we cannot have a professional force that can be ruled by a reliable government, then my second-best option could be neutrality with a citizen-army.

 

As mentioned, not in the OP granted but later in the thread, a citizen-army would normally not be my first choice, but rather a pragmatic alternative to an professional army led by an excessively militaristic and nationalist government.

 

Machjo

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'.

kropotkin1951

Machjo wrote:

Sven wrote:

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. 

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.

kropotkin1951

As for our Alamos how about:

 

Remember Chocolate Laura  

or

At Lundy's Lane The Invaders Made No Gain

remind remind's picture

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

Webgear

Really, I thought you were a macho man already.

PraetorianFour

Machjo wrote:

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.

 

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. 

remind remind's picture

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

Webgear

Oh remind, bite me.

remind remind's picture

Can dish, but not receive eh!

Webgear

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.

Webgear

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

Frmrsldr

Sven wrote:

Maybe Canada should simply disarm itself.

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?

Frmrsldr

Machjo wrote:

Also, another aspect of neutrality would be that any country could join, and not a select group unlike the case with NATO.

Frmrsldr wrote:

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

Machjo wrote:

You're sure about that?So if I understand correctly, as long as a country respects international law, it's free to join? And if it violates international law, it suffers sanctions from its allies? I don't think NATO had placed any sanctions against the US when it invaded Iraq in spite of the fact that the UN itself had stated it was an illegal war.

No, that's not my argument. NATO is a sock puppet of the U.S.A. NATO has no legal power to level sanctions against anyone. Only the U.N. can do that. In this context, Russia, China, India, Iran, Venezuela, (Cuba, forgot Cuba earlier) have violated no relevant 'international laws'. They are excluded from the 'coveted' NATO club because the U.S.A. doesn't like them. In the case of Iran, Israel is putting pressure on the U.S.A. because Israel wants to attack/invade Iran due to the fact that Israel sees Iran as a threat to hegemony in the Middle East.

The U.S.A. is pissed off at Iran: "How dare Iran develop its own independent policies and not sell cheap oil to us."

Machjo wrote:

... I'd still choose an alliance over no international co-operation whatsoever as that allows us to reduce our military spending somewhat.

That contradicts the initial argument of this page.

The Swiss military model is one of armed, trained citizen soldiers who will defend their country if invaded. It is a model of self-defense. In line with this policy, Switzerland eschews entangling military alliances with foreign powers.

The logical extension of this military model writ large is that all the nations of the world become armed camps of citizen soldiers who will defend their countries if attacked. There will be no (defensive) combined camps of nations based on collective military agreements or alliances. It's everyone for themself, and hopefully there are no nations that covet their neighbors' goods and who are willing to use military force to take them. Should this happen, then in a just world, the attacked country will prevail.

It's like some gun enthusiasts in the U.S.A. who argue that all adults of sane mind and without a history or criminal record of violent crime, should own firearms. Just like the current policy of allowing adults to own and drive cars. Courses can be offered to qualify people on the safe use, storage and handling of firearms and ammunition. Licenses can be issued for gun ownership. Like Switzerland, imagine what a safe and crime free society/world we would live in. Right?

 

 

remind remind's picture

Webgear wrote:
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.

Oh goodness, I am wounded, wounded I tell ya....especially cionsidering, I already tore apart the person starting this threads premise, and then watched a dialogue unfold that should not be happening here and belongs at Freedominion.

 

War mongering is such a progressive past time eh....

Pages

Topic locked