Would a Swiss military model promote better international relations?

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. 

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.

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?

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 

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.

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.

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.

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(!)

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 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?

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."

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?

Maybe Canada should simply disarm itself.

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.

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

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. 

Oh remind, bite me.

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.

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?

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....