babble home
rabble.ca - news for the rest of us
today's active topics


  
FAQ | Forum Home
  next oldest topic   next newest topic
» babble   » archived babble   » the NDP   » NDP defense policy?

Email this thread to someone!    
Author Topic: NDP defense policy?
LiberalPrisoner
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 11293

posted 21 December 2005 12:39 AM      Profile for LiberalPrisoner     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
On the official NDP site, the party is long on criticizing the performance of the Liberal government, but short on any description of what they would actually do if they had their say-so.

http://www.ndp.ca/page/2463

Merely expressing that Canadians expect 'fair salaries, decent housing and safe equipment' for the CF is lacklustre and perhaps, disingenious?

If the NDP is ever to be taken as a serious contender to one day actually form a national government (please!), they will need credible policies on all areas of federal jurisdiction, not just on the easy social ones.

Any volunteers to step up to the plate and shed some light?


From: Montreal | Registered: Dec 2005  |  IP: Logged
Red Albertan
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 9195

posted 21 December 2005 01:03 AM      Profile for Red Albertan        Edit/Delete Post
Keep in mind that though I am a Socialist, I am not a member of the NDP, and therefore speak only for myself:

Canada's Defense Policy is not a real issue. Why? Because we don't need a big military. The type of military that we would need to defend our vast territory would run us broke. But aside from Hans Island and St Pierre et Michelon, our biggest threat is from the United States, of which we would be unable to repel an invasion, no matter how much money we spend.

Aside from that, nobody else would dare attack us, because of the US dependency on our natural resources. In fact, they consider them 'domestic', and would use an attack by any other country as a reason to occupy Canada and repel the invaders from endangering their resource supply.

As far as foreign policy is concerned, we don't need a strong military either. Canada has lost its reputation for peacekeeping, and our military is being (ab)used for invasions and occupations. Harper merely wants a strong military in order to be the Mussolini to our southern Hitler, sending our men and women to kill 'brown people' in other countries, side by side with the troops of The Empire. Instead of boasting of his friendship with George Bush, he should be calling for a war crimes trial to be held in which GWB and his gang would be 'guests of (dis)honor'. Those evil men have committed enough crimes against humanity to have them hanged twice over at Nuremberg.


From: the world is my church, to do good is my religion | Registered: May 2005  |  IP: Logged
Lard Tunderin' Jeezus
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1275

posted 21 December 2005 01:22 AM      Profile for Lard Tunderin' Jeezus   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
After so many smart posts, I'm disappointed in you, RA.

No country that cares to call itself one can abdicate responsibility for its territorial sovereignty. And many smaller, poorer countries in the world pull their own weight better than we do in this regard, I'm embarassed to say.


From: ... | Registered: Aug 2001  |  IP: Logged
Jacob Two-Two
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2092

posted 21 December 2005 02:01 AM      Profile for Jacob Two-Two     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
I agree. The Liberal party has not just underfunded the military but horribly mismanaged it, by making the spending political rather than practical. The NDP has stated the need for a new evaluation of the military's priorities and capabilities, the kind that hasn't been done in over a decade. Without this study, it is difficult for anyone (any politican anyway) to make much in the way of recommendations because they're basically firing in the dark. Canada needs to have a clear vision of what our military is for and fund it fully and competently when that is established, not just use it for playing politics. This is my opinion and it is also the NDP's.
From: There is but one Gord and Moolah is his profit | Registered: Jan 2002  |  IP: Logged
TheStudent
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 11410

posted 21 December 2005 03:54 AM      Profile for TheStudent        Edit/Delete Post
My personal feeling, and the feeling of most of my fellow members of the Trent NDP Association, is that Canada needs to withdraw from all of its foreign missions that are not peacekeeping as part of the United Nations, as well as from Haiti, because that was an American initiative that was okayed retroactively by the U.N. The Canadian Armed Forces should be an instrument of peace-keeping, and we need to do our utmost to regain the image we had in the 1970s as a nation of peacekeepers.
From: Re-instate Audra Now! | Registered: Dec 2005  |  IP: Logged
radiorahim
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2777

posted 21 December 2005 04:52 AM      Profile for radiorahim     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
We've got military families using foodbanks...and so raising pay has got to be the top priority.
From: a Micro$oft-free computer | Registered: Jun 2002  |  IP: Logged
Red Albertan
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 9195

posted 21 December 2005 08:31 AM      Profile for Red Albertan        Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Lard tunderin' jeesus:
After so many smart posts, I'm disappointed in you, RA.

No country that cares to call itself one can abdicate responsibility for its territorial sovereignty. And many smaller, poorer countries in the world pull their own weight better than we do in this regard, I'm embarassed to say.


What's "pulling their weight"? Doing their share of the senseless murder that is going on in the world? You can disagree with me, but I have never been one to support military. Military is the #1 cause of wars in the world.


From: the world is my church, to do good is my religion | Registered: May 2005  |  IP: Logged
Red Albertan
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 9195

posted 21 December 2005 08:33 AM      Profile for Red Albertan        Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by TheStudent:
My personal feeling, and the feeling of most of my fellow members of the Trent NDP Association, is that Canada needs to withdraw from all of its foreign missions that are not peacekeeping as part of the United Nations, as well as from Haiti, because that was an American initiative that was okayed retroactively by the U.N. The Canadian Armed Forces should be an instrument of peace-keeping, and we need to do our utmost to regain the image we had in the 1970s as a nation of peacekeepers.

I am with you on this. If Canada doesn't use its military for peacekeeping only, then what's the point. Of course, Haiti will be labelled 'peacekeeping', even though it isn't. Overthrowing a democratic government isn't peacekeeping.


From: the world is my church, to do good is my religion | Registered: May 2005  |  IP: Logged
Jay Williams
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 11367

posted 21 December 2005 08:35 AM      Profile for Jay Williams        Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Red Albertan:

...but I have never been one to support military. Military is the #1 cause of wars in the world.


Actually, it's the political leadership that sends the military to war.

[ 21 December 2005: Message edited by: Jay Williams ]


From: Toronto | Registered: Dec 2005  |  IP: Logged
Carter
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 8667

posted 21 December 2005 08:51 AM      Profile for Carter        Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Red Albertan:
Of course, Haiti will be labelled 'peacekeeping', even though it isn't.
Exactly, just like the "peacekeeping" mission in Afghanistan. "Peacekeeping" is too often just a sweet-sounding name for imperialism (and has been for a long time... remember Pax Romana?).

Anyway, as for the NDP defense policy, immediate withdrawal from NATO would be a good start. I seem to remember there being a Canadian political party in the eighties that took such a principled stand, but I can't remember what it was called.


From: Goin' Down the Road | Registered: Mar 2005  |  IP: Logged
TweakedEnigma
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 10847

posted 21 December 2005 03:17 PM      Profile for TweakedEnigma   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Im inclined to agree with most that the Military should be used for Peace keeping only. It is not our place to stick our nose in other countries business unless we are asked to by the UN. But I do think things have to change a strong Military is one of the things that keeps a country sovereign and as it stands right now we could not hold the Americans back if they did try to occupy Canada.

[ 21 December 2005: Message edited by: TweakedEnigma ]


From: Fredericton, NB | Registered: Nov 2005  |  IP: Logged
Alan Avans
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 7663

posted 21 December 2005 05:06 PM      Profile for Alan Avans   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
I'm a pacifist...but I'm going to talk facts here. Canada can build a military that can the i invading forces of even such powers as USAmerica. If occupied, Canadian forces and the insurgent populace can repell the occupiers. But not without the right training, the right kind of teams and the right kind of equipment. Of course massive non-violent resistance is a great possibility too.

If you don't believe that Canada could pack quite a punch... le'ts suppose California had seceded from the Union and just consider what the USAmerica would be up against if it were to invade California and somehow California had at least an equal proportion of firepower, good leadership and flexibility of operations of its teams on the ground. Does anyone really think it would be a cake walk for USAmerican forces to take California?

If USAmerica were to try take Sweden it would be Vietnam all over again. And Israel could hold its own against an American force many times the size of the IDF.


From: Christian Democratic Union of USAmerica | Registered: Dec 2004  |  IP: Logged
Left_Wing_New_Democrat
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 11258

posted 21 December 2005 08:30 PM      Profile for Left_Wing_New_Democrat     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
I agree with Red Albertan Military is never a good thing. which is why I can never hope to win a seat in parliament but I just plain refuse to support murder or violence for any reason other than defece against invasion and occupation...and even than Im a pacifist so I cant help the Canadian resistance in the event of the US coming to take back their 'domestic resources' from us.
From: Lucknow | Registered: Dec 2005  |  IP: Logged
Red Albertan
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 9195

posted 21 December 2005 08:44 PM      Profile for Red Albertan        Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by TweakedEnigma:
Im inclined to agree with most that the Military should be used for Peace keeping only. It is not our place to stick our nose in other countries business unless we are asked to by the UN. But I do think things have to change a strong Military is one of the things that keeps a country sovereign and as it stands right now we could not hold the Americans back if they did try to occupy Canada.

The basic role of military should be the protection of the people and the sovereignty of the country. The military should NEVER be active outside the borders of their nation, unless preceded by an attack by another country. Frankly, as I demonstrated with the Haiti example, I do not even believe that our military should be involved in 'peacekeeping', because just because the UN authorizes a mission and takes away the sovereignty of another nation by vote of the majority, doesn't make the mission either truly legitimate or peacekeeping. The UN is being used as the tool of the mighty. We should neither sell weapons to other countries, nor should we be sending our soldiers to meddle in the affairs of other nations. If you are saying to have a military to protect our sovereignty only, then yes, I can agree with that. In that case, our troops are unlikely to see war.


From: the world is my church, to do good is my religion | Registered: May 2005  |  IP: Logged
Red Albertan
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 9195

posted 21 December 2005 09:05 PM      Profile for Red Albertan        Edit/Delete Post
Proud to be a draft-dodger (a European country), and would do it all over again. I will not lend my blood to flow for the momentary wishes of some corrupt politician (or government) who's merely out to enrich himself and some corporate buddies. Why are people oh-so-stupid to fall for the same lies of patriotism & fighting for freedom over and over again.

The war in Afghanistan that Canada is involved in has nothing to do with liberating Afghans and fighting the Taliban and al-Qaida. But Bush's connection to the Carlyle Group has something to do with al-Qaida. Cheney's connection to the oil barons has something to do with Afghanistan.

The war in Afghanistan has nothing to do with Terrorism or Freedom. It has everything to do with an oil pipeline that connects central Asia to the Indian Ocean. It has everything to do with getting the poppy crops back up (which the Taliban destroyed), so that the CIA can finance its illegitimate operations with drug money again. It has everything to do with making the rich richer, and the poor poorer. THAT is what Canada's soldiers are shedding their blood for and risking their lives for. The war in Iraq is nothing more but robbery of the resources of an Arab nation, and poisoning their land for the rest of humanity's history with Depleted Uranium. It is not about freedom, but about enslavement. It is not about justice, but exploitation and injustice and impoverishment. The destruction of the Haitian democracy is nothing but Imperialism of The US, Canada and France, and making sure that the Haitian people will be steeped in poverty forever. Filthy liars like Bush and Blair (and soon Harper?) talk about Liberty but mean Bondage. They talk about Opportunity but mean Exploitation. They talk about Freedom but mean Slavery. They talk about Democracy but mean imposed puppet governments which will do the bidding of the corporate and political Elites in Washington. While we have taken what looks like a few steps forward on the treadmill surface of what is political Canada, in reality we have fallen back, as politicians erode our freedoms - thanks Anne! - and integrate us more and more into Bush's Empire. Don't let the few advances blind you to the big picture.


From: the world is my church, to do good is my religion | Registered: May 2005  |  IP: Logged
Webgear
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 9443

posted 22 December 2005 01:23 AM      Profile for Webgear     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
“People expect the women and men of our Canadian Armed Forces to have fair salaries, decent housing and safe equipment — to keep doing the job that we ask them to do.”

I am interested in the NDP policy; I would like to know more about it. However there seems to be little mentioned in their plan?

1. What would be a fair salary for average Canadian soldier? I would guess in the 45,000 dollar range depending on rank and qualifications. 45,000 dollars is the current average salary of a soldier. So why pay us more when we already have a decent salary?

2. How would the NDP improve military base housing? My current home was built in the late 1940’s and has not been updated since the early 1970s. Both the plumbing and electrical are not up to code and during the winter months I have to have the furnace running all day to keep the house at a decent temperature. I doubt any updates needed to be done will happen because of the cost of having to rewire, put in new windows and any other repairs.

3. What type of equipment does the NDP want us
to have? I seem to recall the NDP stating that they are against most of the current equipment purchases that have been talked about in the last few years such as the heavy lift aircraft and the MSG.

4. I would like to know what type of mission the NDP would commit the forces to. United Nations Peacekeeping Missions are more dangerous than what is realized, as of the 30th of November, 2005 some 113 UN soldiers and personal have be killed in peacekeeping missions this year alone.

More Canadian soldiers were killed and wounded during the UNPROFOR years than have been killed and wound in Afghanistan (both missions have the same length of time and force size).

5. What will the NDP do about the situation in Sudan? Will the NDP send troops or will Canada allow genocide to happen in Africa?


From: Montgomery's Tavern | Registered: May 2005  |  IP: Logged
Left Turn
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 8662

posted 22 December 2005 06:20 AM      Profile for Left Turn     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
TheStudent wrote:
quote:
My personal feeling, and the feeling of most of my fellow members of the Trent NDP Association, is that Canada needs to withdraw from all of its foreign missions that are not peacekeeping as part of the United Nations, as well as from Haiti, because that was an American initiative that was okayed retroactively by the U.N. The Canadian Armed Forces should be an instrument of peace-keeping, and we need to do our utmost to regain the image we had in the 1970s as a nation of peacekeepers.

I extend a hearfelt thanks to the members of the Trent NDP Association for their willingness to take this courageous stand. The next step is for the Trent NDP to send a motion to this effect to the next NDP convention.

[ 22 December 2005: Message edited by: Left Turn ]


From: Burnaby, BC | Registered: Mar 2005  |  IP: Logged
Webgear
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 9443

posted 22 December 2005 10:34 AM      Profile for Webgear     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
The Student

“The Canadian Armed Forces should be an instrument of peace-keeping, and we need to do our utmost to regain the image we had in the 1970s as a nation of peacekeepers.”

Why do you think the CF had a strong image as peacekeepers? What military skills have changed now between 1970s and in the last 5 years? What is the difference between the CF now and the CF of the 1970s?


From: Montgomery's Tavern | Registered: May 2005  |  IP: Logged
LiberalPrisoner
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 11293

posted 22 December 2005 04:34 PM      Profile for LiberalPrisoner     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
I think the majority of Canadians don't want Canada to do anything drastic like pull out of NATO, or shut down a whole lot of bases.

But judging by the ideas I see posted here, this could be one more reason why Canadians don't feel they can trust the NDP to form a government --- which will keep the NDP from overtaking CPC as an opposition contender.

I suspect Canadians would like very much to preserve the image they think Canada has -- as an active participant in UN-sanctioned peacekeeping missions.

The need to defend our borders (against the US?) needn't rank high on anyone's credible-threat list, but preserving the basic ability to patrol our own borders (land and sea) and to invest in modern equipment to know whats going on in our own backyard should definitely be.

Even Sweden spends a higher percentage of GDP on defense than Canada does. Why can't the NDP have a more credible defense policy?


From: Montreal | Registered: Dec 2005  |  IP: Logged
Cougyr
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3336

posted 22 December 2005 05:59 PM      Profile for Cougyr     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by LiberalPrisoner:
I think the majority of Canadians don't want Canada to do anything drastic like pull out of NATO . . .

I would. NATO is a relic of the Cold War looking for a new home. It's time to bury it.

For Canadians, I think it very important that we disengage from military arrangements with the US. We must, at all costs, stay out of America's world wide bullying. The world is beginning to react to the excesses of the Bush regime and Canada should choose carefully. When the fecal matter hits the machine of rotary motion, Canada needs to be at a distance from the airborn mess.


From: over the mountain | Registered: Nov 2002  |  IP: Logged
Red Albertan
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 9195

posted 22 December 2005 11:05 PM      Profile for Red Albertan        Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Webgear:
The Student

“The Canadian Armed Forces should be an instrument of peace-keeping, and we need to do our utmost to regain the image we had in the 1970s as a nation of peacekeepers.”

Why do you think the CF had a strong image as peacekeepers? What military skills have changed now between 1970s and in the last 5 years? What is the difference between the CF now and the CF of the 1970s?


The "Doctrine" most of all. The military has been transformed into a force that no longer sees 'Peacekeeping' but 'Intervention' and 'Projecting our Influence' as their main purpose.


From: the world is my church, to do good is my religion | Registered: May 2005  |  IP: Logged
Red Albertan
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 9195

posted 22 December 2005 11:09 PM      Profile for Red Albertan        Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by LiberalPrisoner:
I think the majority of Canadians don't want Canada to do anything drastic like pull out of NATO, or shut down a whole lot of bases.

But judging by the ideas I see posted here, this could be one more reason why Canadians don't feel they can trust the NDP to form a government --- which will keep the NDP from overtaking CPC as an opposition contender.

I suspect Canadians would like very much to preserve the image they think Canada has -- as an active participant in UN-sanctioned peacekeeping missions.

The need to defend our borders (against the US?) needn't rank high on anyone's credible-threat list, but preserving the basic ability to patrol our own borders (land and sea) and to invest in modern equipment to know whats going on in our own backyard should definitely be.

Even Sweden spends a higher percentage of GDP on defense than Canada does. Why can't the NDP have a more credible defense policy?


Perhaps because there is no credible threat? (That threat will however become a lot more credible as Canada integrates with the US and takes on their imperialist nature)


From: the world is my church, to do good is my religion | Registered: May 2005  |  IP: Logged
Webgear
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 9443

posted 23 December 2005 12:15 AM      Profile for Webgear     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Red Albertan

“The "Doctrine" most of all. The military has been transformed into a force that no longer sees 'Peacekeeping' but 'Intervention' and 'Projecting our Influence' as their main purpose.”

The doctrine has not changed, we still use the same basic tactics, the training is still the same, the CF has always prepared for war fighting and for peacekeeping, there is no change in how the military does its duties.

The training is still the same for a UN mission or a NATO mission.


From: Montgomery's Tavern | Registered: May 2005  |  IP: Logged
Red Albertan
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 9195

posted 23 December 2005 12:27 AM      Profile for Red Albertan        Edit/Delete Post
Canada is now actively engaged in the overthrow of foreign governments - Afghanistan & Haiti- , which was not previously part of the 'doctrine'. Expect the future to contain a lot more of that, now that the 'Leftists' have been purged from the Liberal Party, and both the Liberal and Conservative Parties further integrating our military into the US command structure.

There has also been mention that Canada is establishing a permanent military base in the Persian Gulf [UAE] in order to 'project our influence' in the region. That also is not peacekeeping.


From: the world is my church, to do good is my religion | Registered: May 2005  |  IP: Logged
Webgear
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 9443

posted 23 December 2005 12:34 AM      Profile for Webgear     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
“Further integrating our military into the US command structure.”

I hear this phrase (or variations of this phrase) a lot, can you please tell me more about this integration into the US military forces.

And what type of mission do you consider peacekeeping?


From: Montgomery's Tavern | Registered: May 2005  |  IP: Logged
siren
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 7470

posted 23 December 2005 01:30 AM      Profile for siren     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
The NDP defence policy is more fully outlined under Bill Blaikies's web site.

quote:

An Alternative Defence Policy
A discussion document prepared by Michael Byers,
Liu Institute for Global Issues, University of British Columbia.

MICHAEL BYERS holds a Canada Research Chair (Tier 1) in Global Politics and International Law at the University of British Columbia, where he also serves as Academic Director of the Liu Institute for Global Issues.


In some ways, it makes sense for such a paper to be under Blaikie's name as he is Defence critic. In another way -- such a document should be readily available. I only found it via searching the author's name. Aren't there any socialist minded computer geeks out there in cyberspace??


From: Of course we could have world peace! But where would be the profit in that? | Registered: Nov 2004  |  IP: Logged
Webgear
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 9443

posted 23 December 2005 01:45 AM      Profile for Webgear     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Siren

The paper is actually very good in terms of a defence policy and problems with the CF. I wish that NDP would have used more of that paper when they issued their defence policy and not what they put out their website.


From: Montgomery's Tavern | Registered: May 2005  |  IP: Logged
LiberalPrisoner
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 11293

posted 23 December 2005 02:17 PM      Profile for LiberalPrisoner     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Excellent find, Siren!

Yes, this is a very rational defense policy that the NDP should have no shame to adopt.

It sets out very reasonable, practical, and achieveable goals for Canada's defense without
breaking anyone's budget, and is in agreement with what most Canadians can support.

Bravo!


From: Montreal | Registered: Dec 2005  |  IP: Logged
Webgear
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 9443

posted 23 December 2005 03:54 PM      Profile for Webgear     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
"Canada cannot deploy much of its army equipment, including the Strykers, Coyotes and LAV IIIs (all of which are very suitable for peacekeeping and peacemaking) without hiring or borrowing foreign aircraft."

What type and how many aircraft will the NDP purchase the military?


From: Montgomery's Tavern | Registered: May 2005  |  IP: Logged
Rufus Polson
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3308

posted 23 December 2005 04:32 PM      Profile for Rufus Polson     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Webgear:

2. How would the NDP improve military base housing?

Well, if nothing else, even aside from it being military they'd probably retrofit it for improved energy efficiency, which might well as a byproduct resolve some of the other issues. Certainly should deal with the need to run the furnace constantly. That's part of the environmental platform rather than the military platform, but seems to me it would apply.


As to transport craft, I personally still like to speculate about modern (helium) zeppelins. There are a few being made for cargo. Not superfast, no, but they could carry a whole bunch and would probably have pretty good range. Not sure what facilities they'd need for takeoff and landing--it'd be vertical, but they'd be pretty big and likely vulnerable to winds. Still, seems to me they might be able to make do with a big field rather than a long concrete runway; potentially quite flexible.
Not that the NDP is likely to be into that. Just a notion I like floating from time to time.

[ 23 December 2005: Message edited by: Rufus Polson ]


From: Caithnard College | Registered: Nov 2002  |  IP: Logged
Willowdale Wizard
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3674

posted 04 January 2006 06:36 PM      Profile for Willowdale Wizard   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
The basic role of military should be the protection of the people and the sovereignty of the country. The military should NEVER be active outside the borders of their nation, unless preceded by an attack by another country.

that's a very 19th century conception of the nation-state.

if you have a world with amnesty international (over 1.8 million members in over 150 countries), hackers crashing yahoo, and gazprom's antics with ukraine the past month, it's not just about states and armies anymore, let alone states withdrawing from anywhere outside their borders.

i'd like to see a consistent explanation by layton about what "security" means in the early 21st century.

security needs to be about trying to halt climate change (wars over water resources; millions of future environmental refugees; the global insurance industry going kablooey with climate emergency reserves running dry).

security should be linked with, say, the international trafficking of prostitutes, or it should address the millions of AIDS orphans in africa. canada has placed too much of an emphasis on interoperability with US forces and their overseas interventions. we need to begin defining our own priorities.

from siren's link:

quote:
Today, fewer than 300 Canadians are serving as UN peacekeepers, despite the fact that the UN is busier at peacekeeping than ever before.

that's a disgrace. i'd like to think it's a little-known fact that would shock the majority of canadians who favourably view the UN. that stat would make a good soundbite for election debates and all candidates meetings.


From: england (hometown of toronto) | Registered: Jan 2003  |  IP: Logged
jrootham
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 838

posted 04 January 2006 06:46 PM      Profile for jrootham     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
The basic role of military should be the protection of the people and the sovereignty of the country. The military should NEVER be active outside the borders of their nation, unless preceded by an attack by another country.

This is the Swiss approach. They have one of the bigger armies around (about 1.2 milliion now, as near as I can guess from the current population structure). I think they wouldn't b=mov outside Switzerland even if attacked first. Their motto is "Not one foreign boot in Switzerland, not one Swiss boot outside Switzerland".


From: Toronto | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged
Andrew_Jay
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 10408

posted 04 January 2006 09:27 PM      Profile for Andrew_Jay        Edit/Delete Post
quote:
The basic role of military should be the protection of the people and the sovereignty of the country. The military should NEVER be active outside the borders of their nation, unless preceded by an attack by another country.
That would certainly have made Rwanda less embarassing. Failure to save 1,000,000 people? Not at all, we just won't even consider doing anything about it in the first place!

Canada - and other countries - do have an obligation to use our position to do some good and intervene where necessary.


From: Extremism is easy. You go right and meet those coming around from the far left | Registered: Sep 2005  |  IP: Logged
Reason
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 9504

posted 04 January 2006 09:29 PM      Profile for Reason   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Willowdale Wizard:

that's a disgrace. i'd like to think it's a little-known fact that would shock the majority of canadians who favourably view the UN. that stat would make a good soundbite for election debates and all candidates meetings.


UN mandate peacekeeping missions are flawed, in that partisan politics in the SC and the GA generally come into play when the ROEs are written.

An example of poorly written ROEs would include the early years of Yugoslavia/Bosnia. The ROEs for UNPROFOR were so poor that (name your favorite entity here) would literally commit rape and murder infront of peacekeepers and they could do nothing aside from notify local "authorities".

The UN has further flaws, as not one of those peacekeeping missions since UNPROFR has been a success IMHO. If the demand is to pull out of NATO and only participate in UN missions, I say we should be pulling out of UN missions as well. Participating in abject failure is not an option.

The UN must be revamped, that should be a priority.


From: Ontario | Registered: Jun 2005  |  IP: Logged
Webgear
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 9443

posted 04 January 2006 09:54 PM      Profile for Webgear     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Willowdale Wizard maybe you can answer some of my questions as you seem up to date on the current military situation without looking it up on the internet?

1. Do you know where the 300 Canadian peacekeepers are located and what missions they are performing?

2. Can anyone tell me, what was the last major UN mission Canada took part in?

3. What has Canada done for the Sudan crisis in the last year?


From: Montgomery's Tavern | Registered: May 2005  |  IP: Logged
the grey
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3604

posted 04 January 2006 10:49 PM      Profile for the grey     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
It might be cheating, but up to date force deployment information is available at forces.gc.ca.

Also note that the 300 number is almost a year old. The overwhelming majority of the 1300 deployed personnel appear to be on UN missions. The largest ones are in Afghanistan (just under 1000) and the Sinai (just under 200).

Some numbers are notably small - Haiti (5) and Iraq (1, with the UN) seem particularly relevant to note here.


From: London, Ontario | Registered: Jan 2003  |  IP: Logged
Brett Mann
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 6441

posted 04 January 2006 11:03 PM      Profile for Brett Mann        Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Rufus Polson:


As to transport craft, I personally still like to speculate about modern (helium) zeppelins. There are a few being made for cargo. Not superfast, no, but they could carry a whole bunch and would probably have pretty good range. Not sure what facilities they'd need for takeoff and landing--it'd be vertical, but they'd be pretty big and likely vulnerable to winds. Still, seems to me they might be able to make do with a big field rather than a long concrete runway; potentially quite flexible.
Not that the NDP is likely to be into that. Just a notion I like floating from time to time.

[ 23 December 2005: Message edited by: Rufus Polson ]


Damit! And I thought we had expunged all the Dadaists from High Command.


An interesting point of Blaikie's discussion paper (which I only skimmed) is his observation that diminished Canadian defence budgets have led to such expedients as closer inter-operability with US forces. This is yet another reason why it should be clear to all that an absolute pre-requisite of a more independent foreign policy for Canada will be a vastly strengthened military capacity.

This is a Achille's heel for the Canadian left. It is the reason - an even greater reason than people's reputed misgivings about NDP financial stewardship - that the majority of Canadians find it too easy to dismiss the NDP as a realistic possible federal government. Equating being anti-war with being anti-military is nothing more than the lazy thinking of those who haven't taken the time to take a close look at Canada's military history - it is arguably what formed the modern Canada - or at what Canada would be called upon to do and to provide in a world where it no longer depended on American military protection.


From: Prince Edward County ON | Registered: Jul 2004  |  IP: Logged
Paul Gross
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3576

posted 04 January 2006 11:24 PM      Profile for Paul Gross   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by the grey:
up to date force deployment information is available at 0forces.gc.ca.

Also note that the 300 number is almost a year old. The overwhelming majority of the 1300 deployed personnel appear to be on UN missions.


On the Ranking of Military and Police Contributions to UN Operations, Canada ranked #32 in November 2005 with 382 members, just behind Zambia and the USA. But at least we beat Togo (#35 with 329)!

The difference between the 382 UN count and the 1,338 forces.gc.ca figure is the 983 listed on forces.gc.ca as participating in "Operation ENDURING FREEDOM" in Afghanistan. This is NOT United Nations Peacekeeping, rather Canada is a major player in George Bush's so-called "campaign against terrorism"

[ 04 January 2006: Message edited by: Paul Gross ]


From: central Centretown in central Canada | Registered: Jan 2003  |  IP: Logged
Andrew_Jay
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 10408

posted 05 January 2006 12:12 AM      Profile for Andrew_Jay        Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Paul Gross:
The difference between the 382 UN count and the 1,338 forces.gc.ca figure is the 983 listed on forces.gc.ca as participating in "Operation ENDURING FREEDOM" in Afghanistan. This is NOT United Nations Peacekeeping, rather Canada is a major player in George Bush's so-called "campaign against terrorism"
No, it's not a U.N. mission, but it has U.N. approval.

From: Extremism is easy. You go right and meet those coming around from the far left | Registered: Sep 2005  |  IP: Logged
FireWorks
recent-rabble-rouser
Babbler # 9895

posted 05 January 2006 01:47 AM      Profile for FireWorks     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
According to Romeo Dallaire (I'm sure most of you are familiar with him--he was the general in charge of UN troops in Rwanada (1)), no one is good at peacekeeping. And I suspect that would apply to Canada in the 70s the same as today.

I'm no military expert, but when I heard Dallaire speak, he mentioned that one problem is that modern militaries weren't designed to handle conflict resolution. They're designed to win conflicts. When you put people that are trained to kill in situations where your goal is to prevent anyone from being killed, everyone just has to make things up as they go along. Another problem is that the US constantly hamstrings the UN whenever it tries to do anything useful (and the UN trying to do useful things doesn't happen nearly as much as it should).

And I have to say, Rwanda is one of those situations that I think it's entirely unreasonable to argue that foreign powers shouldn't have become involved. Sovereignty be damned, humans on one side of a border are just as human as those on the other side.

I think the idea of building a military for the defence of Canada is ridiculous. You're defending against ghosts. No one is going to invade us by force. What are they going to do? Float a giant pontoon loaded with soldiers and tanks across the Atlantic? Build a bridge across to Alaska and tramp through Alaska to invade the Yukon? Launch an ICBM? Good luck defending against that with your well-equipped soldiers. And who will do it? Denmark, for that little arctic island? USA? (You're fooling yourself if you think they'd do it, or that any amount of military spending would defend against that. Canadian individuals are already pretty well-armed anyway, it seems.)

Our military is consistently far more useful for laying sandbags than killing invaders. They should be trained for peacekeeping and emergency relief, and the rest of our focus should be on world stability through dealing with the causes of problems, such as poverty, so that the military will never be needed for defence.


From: City | Registered: Jul 2005  |  IP: Logged
Aristotleded24
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 9327

posted 05 January 2006 01:59 AM      Profile for Aristotleded24   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by FireWorks:
And I have to say, Rwanda is one of those situations that I think it's entirely unreasonable to argue that foreign powers shouldn't have become involved. Sovereignty be damned, humans on one side of a border are just as human as those on the other side.

In Rwanda's case, the negotiating parties had asked the UN to come in and monitor the agreement, so dealing specifically with this case, there was no violation of sovereignty at all. Dallaire in his book "Shake Hands With The Devil" describes the many problems he faced in the mission. And it's not just the US. The other Security Council nations aren't eager to support resolutions that would interfere with their country's interests.

I'm sure many people are aware of a racial undertone that allowed Rwanda to happen in the first place. Dallaire had a tough time getting the resources he needed in large part because the major powers aren't going to spend too much effort protecting a group of black people who aren't sitting on any valuable resources.

quote:
Originally posted by FireWorks:
I'm no military expert, but when I heard Dallaire speak, he mentioned that one problem is that modern militaries weren't designed to handle conflict resolution. They're designed to win conflicts. When you put people that are trained to kill in situations where your goal is to prevent anyone from being killed, everyone just has to make things up as they go along.

Well said. I agree.


From: Winnipeg | Registered: May 2005  |  IP: Logged
siren
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 7470

posted 05 January 2006 02:04 AM      Profile for siren     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Reason:

UN mandate peacekeeping missions are flawed, in that partisan politics in the SC and the GA generally come into play when the ROEs are written.

.........

The UN has further flaws, as not one of those peacekeeping missions since UNPROFR has been a success IMHO. If the demand is to pull out of NATO and only participate in UN missions, I say we should be pulling out of UN missions as well. Participating in abject failure is not an option.

The UN must be revamped, that should be a priority.


Ah, heck. I was worried that if I hung around here long enough I would eventually agree with Reason. Dang.

I wonder if it would be enough (in an ideal world) to simply abolish the Security Council. Russia, China, the US, Britain and France having the ultimate say? What does that indicate -- that in order to matter you must be former colonialists? Ideologues?

The NDP is in a good position to start thinking about and drawing up policy papers on UN reform. The old liberal party would have been in a similar position.

I do believe a UN type body is our only hope for preparing for peace and justice. Just not the UN as it is currently formed.


From: Of course we could have world peace! But where would be the profit in that? | Registered: Nov 2004  |  IP: Logged
Webgear
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 9443

posted 05 January 2006 02:09 AM      Profile for Webgear     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Romeo Dallaire is a politician and not a soldier.
He never was a soldier, just a politician in a soldier's uniform.

From: Montgomery's Tavern | Registered: May 2005  |  IP: Logged
siren
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 7470

posted 05 January 2006 02:17 AM      Profile for siren     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Webgear:
Romeo Dallaire is a politician and not a soldier.
He never was a soldier, just a politician in a soldier's uniform.

Webgear, your dislike of General Dallaire is duly noted in each and every CF thread on this board. Nonetheless, it is a personal opinion of yours and objectively, Dallaire was a Canadian soldier.

If you dislike politicians in soldier's uniforms -- I wonder that you do not take exception to the pronouncements of the new Chief of Defence for the CF, General Rick Hillier? But that too is well worn history.

I wonder why you are presenting yourself as somewhat naive in this thread. Are you fishing for information here? (Not that I'm criticizing, I'm just a bit taken aback.)


From: Of course we could have world peace! But where would be the profit in that? | Registered: Nov 2004  |  IP: Logged
Webgear
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 9443

posted 05 January 2006 02:42 AM      Profile for Webgear     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Siren

Sorry, I am a bit pissed off at some people and in a bad mood in general tonight.

Sorry about sound like a broken record.

I wanted to see if people understood what they are reading at the website they provide with a link or just shooting off at the mouth. I want to see how educated people are about the military. It all started with the

Harper wants urban army bases

For example “the grey” linked the current CF Operations page and mention that there some 1300 persons deployed.

But Paul Gross stated that not all those personal where part of the UN mission. He was trying to indicate that most these soldier are on the “War on Terror” operations. He sounded pretty bitter that they were on that mission.

FireWorks talked about Romeo Dallaire. Romeo Dallaire has flipped flop on the peacekeeping situation so many time I do not what he will say next. In 2003 at Queens University in Kingston, Romeo Dallaire stated if he had 3000 Canadian Troops on the ground there would have few people killed and now he stating that Canadian Troops would not have mattered.

I for once want a decent conversation about the Canadian Military.


From: Montgomery's Tavern | Registered: May 2005  |  IP: Logged
up
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 9143

posted 05 January 2006 02:52 AM      Profile for up     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
We've got military families using foodbanks...and so raising pay has got to be the top priority.

If they are using food banks its a personal finance problem.

because the Forces pay quite well


From: other | Registered: May 2005  |  IP: Logged
siren
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 7470

posted 05 January 2006 03:19 AM      Profile for siren     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Webgear:
....
Sorry, I am a bit pissed off at some people and in a bad mood in general tonight.

...
I for once want a decent conversation about the Canadian Military.


Hmm. Sorry for your pique this evening, WG. I suspect you know it well, but I think very highly of you. It was you who fronted this board and determined that we should all speak about the forces. You set the terms of respect, and I admire you for your perseverance.

Are some of us ignorant about the forces? To be sure. My worry is that many -- perhaps all -- of us are. That counter to your openness, forces are moving in secrecy to build a military that perhaps not many of us will like. A military very much integrated with the American military for e.g. I don wanna see Canucks torturing -- anyone. I don't care how cute pyramids of people is to the Americans.

Also, a lot of the people on this board are "leftish". The current political campaign is not moving in our favour. For myself, I ain't pleased and ain't very congenial about it.

But you are no broken record. I very much value your contribution.


From: Of course we could have world peace! But where would be the profit in that? | Registered: Nov 2004  |  IP: Logged
Reason
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 9504

posted 06 January 2006 12:44 AM      Profile for Reason   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by siren:

Ah, heck. I was worried that if I hung around here long enough I would eventually agree with Reason. Dang.

I wonder if it would be enough (in an ideal world) to simply abolish the Security Council. Russia, China, the US, Britain and France having the ultimate say? What does that indicate -- that in order to matter you must be former colonialists? Ideologues?

The NDP is in a good position to start thinking about and drawing up policy papers on UN reform. The old liberal party would have been in a similar position.

I do believe a UN type body is our only hope for preparing for peace and justice. Just not the UN as it is currently formed.



I'm not gonna always get along with u guys, but know that I find myself likely you all generally...

We need a new world body, on that I agree strongly... The UN right now, for lack of a better description is buggered.


From: Ontario | Registered: Jun 2005  |  IP: Logged
the grey
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3604

posted 06 January 2006 01:09 AM      Profile for the grey     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Paul Gross:

The difference between the 382 UN count and the 1,338 forces.gc.ca figure is the 983 listed on forces.gc.ca as participating in "Operation ENDURING FREEDOM" in Afghanistan.

Close.

The UN number includes 134 police not included in the CF number.

It also excludes humanitarian aid in South Asia (earthquake response), SFOR and EUFOR (Bosnia), MFO (Sinai), Darfur, and IMATT (Sierra Leone).


From: London, Ontario | Registered: Jan 2003  |  IP: Logged

All times are Pacific Time  

   Close Topic    Move Topic    Delete Topic next oldest topic   next newest topic
Hop To:

Contact Us | rabble.ca | Policy Statement

Copyright 2001-2008 rabble.ca