j8ear

Yours looks very similar to a 12-7 cbc summation I read. Perhaps even the same source.

It was just a month ago.

I don't see one penny ever being returned unfortunately. Although I don't think the political maneuvering is over by any stretch...so we'll see.

Eitherway, recently the Canadian Government did inject the industry with 1.2 billion in subsidies, to off-set the harm from American protectionism. Seems this will be a visious circle for quite a while to come. And really the only loosers being the Canadian Softwood lumber industry and the Canadian tax payer...perhaps even to a small degree the US construction industry and ultimately home owners.

^ This not to say that the US is on the up and upon this issue. It does seem less then wise to upset your largest customer though.

I also heard rumblings that the industry itself wants to cave to the American pressures.

Interesting stuff.

Now what about, this legalization issue. I'm for it. Legalization that is, and honestly the decriminilazation of all victimless crimes. What is the US doing in this regard to subvert the will of the Canadian People? How is this possible?

-bear

__________________
It's alot easier to ask for forgiveness then it is to ask for permission.

BigBen

Not really subverting the will of the Canadian people, per se, but instead acting in a very "Heavy Handed" way with their foriegn policies. The US ambassador, the FBI, the DEA and many other powerful groups in the US that walk softly and carry big fucking sticks told Canadian lawmakers that if they pursued bill C-38, there would be serious economic sanctions against Canada; they said this as a way to protect the american people from the drug induced scourge that would befall them if people were allowed to smoke the electric letuce.

I want to clarify: Are you in support of legalization of cannibis, or the decriminalization?

Legalization would include the federal (and provincial, as far as I know) government taxing the consumption of the product, as well as regulating the sale of said product. Much like liquor or tobacco. Sin taxes would abound, and the clerk would ask to see your ID before they sold you your 1/8th.


Please refer to this boring-assed link


Decriminalization turns the punishment section of the criminal code dealing with the prohibited substance cannibis to a different act (the contraventions act), like a traffic ticket. Notice the difference here: It is still illegal, for all intents and purposes; it is still in the criminal code of Canada; it holds the same regulations as other fines, and there is a tracking system. You have to provide your name, ID, et cetera to officers, and if you don't pay the fine, you are in trouble.

There is a limit to the amount of marijuana (or cannibis oil aka "Hash") a person has on their posession... a small amount = small fine; large amount = large fine; really large amount = worse jail sentence than there is right now.

Example: Say there is a guy, I don't know, let's call him Flyman. Flyman likes de herb, and usually keeps 15 grams on his person. Instead of a criminal record and jail time, he now gets a fine ($150). This is infinitely better than the 1000$ fine or six months imprisonment (or both) that is currently in place. Plus, add to that the time and energy saved in the justice system by not pursuing these crimes.

What would happen if traffic violations were arrested, fingerprinted, photographed, processed, given a court date, and then tried at the provincial court? It would be quite the backlog. WAIT A SECOND. We are doing that with cannibis charges right now!!!

It is kind of a middle ground, you see. We don't have to like little Flyman, but in accepting his rebellious behaviour he is paying fines and keeping out of trouble. We are still sanctioning him, but in a more appropriate way. Very Canadian.

__________________
3.141592654
Hey, if you are impressed with my memorizing pi to 10 digits, you should see the size of my penis.

Charlatan

Ahhh but everyone loves the flyman.


Bear... some of the talk in this election has suggested that Canada will get its 5 billion back from the US by charging a tarrif on their imports of oil and energy from Canada.

I'd be curious if that tarrif would go away once they had regained the 5 billion?


(by the way... good eyes. I did use the CBC article as one of my sources. )

__________________
"My hands are on fire. Hands are on fire. Ain't got no more time for all you charlatans and liars."
- Old Man Luedecke

Leto

Soo... to pursue the scenario. Where can I buy my weekend pack of splifs? or my vial (mmmm hash oil..... toasted on peanut butter saltines...)?

HCBO would undoubtedly have to set up a growth support industry, but currently, unless you utilize home grown, is it safe to say that any toke that is taken is at the far end of a huge underground criminal network? When you go to buy your herb now, isn't the supplier the tip of the organized crime/grow op/bike gang organization that we all love to hate?

__________________
You said you didn't give a fuck about hockey
And I never saw someone say that before
You held my hand and we walked home the long way
You were loosening my grip on Bobby Orr

http://dune.wikia.com/wiki/Leto_Atreides_I

Yakk

Canada is in the worlds top 10 navies.

This, admittedly, has more to do with the small size of the world's navies than anything else. But you have to ask, what are you defending against?

Russia, Japan, UK, France, Italy, USA, Germany. Maybe China by now. Who else has a navy that beats Canada's?

To be fair, USA's GDP@PPP/capita is a good chunk higher than Canada's.

Of course, the income@PPP/capita for the lower 60% to 80% of the population in Canada is greater than the USAs. There is a large spike in the USA at the top of the income distribution that holds a huge amount of US income that Canada has to a much lesser extent. There isn't much anything evil about that -- but it does mean that for most of the people, the higher GDP of the US does not translate to any higher standard of living.


Softwood lumber is just an example of the US not living up to a treaty for political reasons.

__________________
Last edited by JHVH : 10-29-4004 BC at 09:00 PM. Reason: Time for a rest.

Leto

and to further illustrate the futility of establishing a huge standing army, the only national force that we would have to protect us from is the US, and to build our military to that level would be impossible. It's the equivalent of one American state fending itself off of the rest of the American union.

I have always thought that the Canadian military would be better served developing special teams similar to DART, or Coast Guard, Air Patrol, counter terrorism and peace keeping deployment.

But to refer back to the VC style in your post... there is a lot of the Red Dawn-ism of such a defence to be found in Richard rhomer's book, Ultimatum. give it a read. OR on second thought... Don't!!

__________________
You said you didn't give a fuck about hockey
And I never saw someone say that before
You held my hand and we walked home the long way
You were loosening my grip on Bobby Orr

http://dune.wikia.com/wiki/Leto_Atreides_I

BigBen

Yes, the growth of large amounts of marijuana would result in HUGE penalties, more than 4 times what is on the table now.

I know you didn't want to click that boring-assed link, and I don't blame you. In there, it prescribes a sanction against people with small amounts of marijuana plants as well.

I think the limits are 3 < 25 < over 25 plants. Small fine for Grandma with glaucoma growing the PersonNip in her flowerbox, and a 14 year (wow!) sentence for the commercial grower, the bad dudes you are referring to.

This would hopefully turn the production of marijuana into a cottage industry. I worry about the practical application of this side of the law, but oh well.

__________________
3.141592654
Hey, if you are impressed with my memorizing pi to 10 digits, you should see the size of my penis.

highthief

I always thought we should develop a good nuclear warhead delivery system and have a few missiles aimed towards Dallas, LA and Washington to act as a deterent against the only nation that might ever attack us. Just to keep things even and honest.

__________________
Si vis pacem parabellum.

Charlatan

Now that wouldn't piss anyone off would it?

__________________
"My hands are on fire. Hands are on fire. Ain't got no more time for all you charlatans and liars."
- Old Man Luedecke

highthief

I know it would annoy the hell out of a lot of people, but c'mon, it's only fair!

And then I would develop a strong rapid deployment team that is extremely well armed, trained and equipped - a small force, but one that would be a vital contribution to any international intervention we might take part in.

__________________
Si vis pacem parabellum.

pan6467

Thanks Charlatan......

All I have now is the vision of the movie Canadian Bacon going through my mind. Great movie.

__________________
I just love people who use the excuse "I use/do this because I LOVE the feeling/joy/happiness it brings me" and expect you to be ok with that as you watch them destroy their life blindly following. My response is, "I like to put forks in an eletrical socket, just LOVE that feeling, can't ever get enough of it, so will you let me put this copper fork in that electric socket?"

Elphaba

Great stuff, Pan.

I have this urgent desire to launch a preemptive attack on my pal in BC. Loser buys lunch.

Aladdin Sane

In another thread I dared defend the United States and I was immediately told (by an enlightened Canadian) that "it is people such as yourself who sound off so vociferously about the US being better than everyone else . . . that has turned a lot of opinion against the US around the world." But now the shoe is on the other foot, and "vociferously sounding off" about the superiority of Canada is acceptable. I think I understand. It's politically correct to point out why Canada is so much better than the U.S., but politically incorrect for Americans to have the nerve to disagree.

__________________
Ceterum censeo Carthaginem esse delendam.

Charlatan

Aladdin... the original article was written by an American. If you read my comment, I found the article amusing (i.e. it is coloured by the fact that the person is American and seeing Canada with rose coloured glasses) and then went on to ask what other American's takes where on the article.

I think you will find, with few exceptions, that those Canadian who are posting here are far from the "Canada is Number One!" sort of boosterism you are claiming to be here. No one is "vociferously sounding off" about the superiority of Canada rather they are defending our system against those who describe it as "piss poor" or who like the orginal article don't know what they are talking about.

Disagree all you want I don't have to roll over and agree with you.

As for your comments about the enlightened Canadian you really missed the point... but that doesn't surprise me.

__________________
"My hands are on fire. Hands are on fire. Ain't got no more time for all you charlatans and liars."
- Old Man Luedecke

highthief

And let's put into context what the glam rock fan said to elicit such a response:

The United States is the reason the other western countries can have luxuries like socialized health care and country club prisons. Contrary to popular belief, mankind has not entered some new enlightened age where the lion and the lamb have laid down together. The only thing standing between the relative international stability we see today and global chaos is the U.S. Sixth Fleet and the American will to use it. If the United States didn't spill the treasure and blood necessary to slam some little murderous despot up against the wall every 10 years or so, western countries that depend on the United States for defense would be in deep shit. Most "allies" depend on the United States to keep the sea lanes open and the skyways safe. If Canada was unable to deliver its lumber across the ocean it wouldn't be long before its prosperity would end.

I'm betting it will happen again before all who are reading this reach old age: there will arise yet another genocidal utopian ideal that will threaten civilization, and the only country that will be able (and willing) to stop it will be the USA. So yes, in that sense, we are an anachronism.

The glam rock fan believes the US is superior to all other nations and that other nations should get down on their collective knees and praise God for the US's existence.

Meanwhile, citizens of other nations are justifiably proud of their countries but don't think everyone else should be thankful just to be mentioned in the same sentence.

There is quite a difference here...

__________________
Si vis pacem parabellum.

alansmithee

And what would that delivery system entail? Mooseback ?

alansmithee

You know, he's right. You are exaggerating what he said. There's an obvious externality being created by the US's military spending. During the Cold war, western Europe was able to develop their economy, knowing that the US was largely footing the bill for their defense (with not only the stationed troops, but NATO). And despite the recent tensions, Europe (and Canada) know that if some despot does arise (I'm looking at you, Germany) the US will come to their defense. It's not about bowing down before American superiority, it's about recognizing the fact that because of the US's bloated military budget, the rest of the western world doesn't have to create their own bloated militaries. And there's a similar effect in medicine, but not quite as pronounced (innovations created in America where the profit is higher spread around the world to places where national health care make developing many drugs not profitable).

Charlatan

I don't disagree with this, on the whole. In fact, had Mr. Sane presented his case in such a way I doubt he would have received the comments he did.

There is a big difference between the *way* you said and the way he did. One is chest thumping and the other is not. It is one thing to be the big boy on the block it is another to rub peoples faces in it.

__________________
"My hands are on fire. Hands are on fire. Ain't got no more time for all you charlatans and liars."
- Old Man Luedecke

Aladdin Sane

"The glam rock fan believes the US is superior to all other nations and that other nations should get down on their collective knees and praise God for the US's existence."

If you speak and understand English, and are of rational mind, there is no way you can read what I said and come to the conclusion "that other nations should get down on their collective knees and praise God for the US's existence."

Some believe the United States is imperialistic, nationalistic, and in fact its very existence is an anachromism. I reject those characterizations and explained the reasons why. You show your weak hand when, instead of rationally addressing my argument, you make irrational statements laced with personal attacks.
If you disagree with my argument, tell me why. I'm more interested in hunting rhinos than rabbits. How about you?

__________________
Ceterum censeo Carthaginem esse delendam.

Charlatan

Sane... I don't agree with your assesment that: "The only thing standing between the relative international stability we see today and global chaos is the U.S. Sixth Fleet and the American will to use it."

I suspect that framing your argument about military spending in this fashion rather than the way that alansmithee did, is what raises the ire of others and leads to the "bow down before the US" comments (i.e. with out the US you are all toast so stop complaining about us and celebrate).

I see that much of the instability in the Middle East, for example, stems from the US placing troops in the region to protect their oil interests. Let's face it, if the Middle East didn't have oil they would a politcal backwater which garner no more interest that say, Africa.

__________________
"My hands are on fire. Hands are on fire. Ain't got no more time for all you charlatans and liars."
- Old Man Luedecke

Leto

Your point being...?

__________________
You said you didn't give a fuck about hockey
And I never saw someone say that before
You held my hand and we walked home the long way
You were loosening my grip on Bobby Orr

http://dune.wikia.com/wiki/Leto_Atreides_I

highthief

And if you aren't a raving loon and speak English, there's no way you can't come to the conclusion that you think the rest of the world owes you and should thank God you let us all breath the same sweet oxygen as you.

__________________
Si vis pacem parabellum.

Aladdin Sane

I rest my case.

__________________
Ceterum censeo Carthaginem esse delendam.

Aladdin Sane

Charlatan, thank you for addressing the issue.
The world is not a vacuum. If the United States did not have a powerful military and the will to use it, some other country or many other countries would step into the void--countries like Iran, North Korea, Cuba, and Syria. Today these rogue nations are held in check by U.S. power.

Is Canada making her fair share of the contribution to international peace? Let's look at the figures. Canada currently ranks 17th in NATO in terms of defence spending as a percentage of Gross Domestic Product (GDP). Only Luxembourg and Iceland spend less. Of the 27 countries represented by NATO, the Pacific Allies, and the Gulf Cooperation Council, Canada ranks 25th in defense spending and 11th in spending on foreign assistence. I believe this is evidence that Canada is not doing her fair share. The question is how can Canada get by with spending so little. The answer to that, in part, lies south of 49N. Simply put, Canada is safe under the protection of the United States.
Permit me to quote Amy Ridenour's National Center Blog:

Canada spends 1.1 percent of its GDP on defense, compared to 3.4 percent for the United States (2002 figures; source: U.S. Defense Department). The U.S. in 2002 spent $350 billion on defense, Canada, $8.17 billion.

Even when it comes to multinational peacekeeping operations, something you'd think would be a little more to the pacifist taste, Canada still doesn't outclass the U.S. The U.S. spent $669 million on this in 2001-2002, while Canada spent $47 million (as a percentage of GDP, the two nations' contributions were roughly equivalent, at .75 and .76 percent respectively).

To put that $47 million figure in perspective, Canada spent less on international peacekeeping in 2002 than The Heritage Foundation, a conservative DC think-tank without a penchant for taking taxpayer dollars, took in in revenue that same year ($52 million).

Canadians proudly point to their contributions to world peace keeping and humanitarian assistence. Today there are at least three humanitarian disasters occuring in Africa. This is the perfect opportunity for peace loving countries like Canada to step in and help. Leadership is needed. Why shouldn't Canada take the lead? To wait is to impose the death penalty on hundreds of thousands of innocent people.

__________________
Ceterum censeo Carthaginem esse delendam.

Leto

first, I think that you need to establish what a 'Fair Share' is. A definition would provide a meaningful argument as to whether the 27 countries in NATO are either above or below the bar. I suspect that the answer lies in the capabilities set. It would be ridiculous to expect a nation of 32 million to provide a huge standing army for peace keeping missions. On the other hand, if the capability lies in counter terrrorism, or rescue efforts, or high etchnology, then let's go. I know that Canadians are willing to pony up in these respects.

Often it's heavy lobbying in the US government that causes these initiatives to fail (Avro fiasco). But we have provided assistance in support and development in other arenas (Cruise missile testing, guidance systems, communications technology, robotics - where we are global leaders)

So what is the fair share? And how does this conflict/support the United Nations initiatives which are (in most peoples minds) more global in perspective than Nato's.

hard to argue against economies of scale. so I wont.

Canada has taken the lead. General Romero was in the thick of it when the rest of the world wasn't listening.

And it looks like we will be left holding the bag in Afghanistan, where incidentally it was the Taliban (not the Iraqis) who were the front linie in the war against terrorism.

link (http://www.thestar.com/NASApp/cs/Con...=1135119019320)



As British and Dutch stall, fears grow that Canadians will be left holding the fort
Dec. 21, 2005. 05:02 AM
BRUCE CAMPION-SMITH
OTTAWA BUREAU


OTTAWA—Canada could find itself isolated on the front line of a dangerous war as the United States withdraws troops from Afghanistan and doubts swirl about the military commitments from key NATO allies in the troubled country.

As Ottawa ramps up its military presence in southern Afghanistan and commanders warn of casualties, both Britain and The Netherlands have yet to confirm whether they'll be fighting alongside the Canadians.

On Monday, the Dutch cabinet again put off a decision to send an extra 1,100 to 1,300 troops to Afghanistan, adding to the 600 troops already there. It's expected to re-examine the issue tomorrow. And there's speculation the British government may send just half the fighting force that was originally discussed for the country.

The uncertainty about the Dutch and British commitments comes as the Pentagon has confirmed U.S. troop levels in Afghanistan will be reduced by about 3,500 — to 16,500 troops — by next spring.

"It can't be good for Canada to be left twisting in the wind," said David Rudd, of the Canadian Institute of Strategic Studies.

"If you look at some of the NATO countries, precious few of them have been willing to take a more assertive stance," Rudd said in an interview. "The commitment doesn't run as deeply or as broadly as we've been led to believe."

But Alain Pellerin, of the Ottawa-based Conference of Defence Associations, a group that advocates for an effective military, is more optimistic, saying he's confident that both the British and Dutch will join the mission.

"The aim of the exercise was always from the start for the allies to fill in various parts of the country so the Americans would be able to reduce their force," he said.

"I've been reassured that the Brits remain onboard... On defence and security issues, the Dutch are serious partners," said Pellerin, a retired colonel.

"That was my concern ... the Canadians are left holding the bag, which doesn't appear to be the case," Pellerin said. "That doesn't mean it's been an easy battle to get through NATO."

The uncertainty could spell big problems for Canada as it embarks on a major new mission in Kandahar, which promises to be its biggest combat operation since the Korean War.

Over the coming months, Canada will deploy almost 2,000 troops to the southern Afghan city, along with a brigade headquarters to take charge of a multinational force that was supposed to include British and Dutch troops.

Indeed, earlier this month, NATO foreign ministers proudly endorsed an expansion of NATO forces to Afghanistan's southern provinces and a boost in troops to 15,000 from 9,000. But behind the scenes, disagreements between NATO partners have delayed the commitment of troops and threatened to undercut the mission.

A divided Dutch coalition government has repeatedly put off the politically sensitive decision about a troop commitment largely because of concern about the growing violence in southern Afghanistan.

And the British government has put off is own decision about operations in the war-torn country, perhaps until early next year, because of the uncertainty about what other countries will do and its own commitment in Iraq.

It was originally thought that Britain would send 2,000 troops backed by Apache attack helicopters. But there's speculation in British newspapers that the Ministry of Defence will only send 1,000 troops with less capable Lynx choppers.

This has left some military experts wondering whether Canada could be left holding the fort at a time when insurgents are growing increasingly violent in southern Afghanistan, once a hot bed of Taliban resistance.

"I have sensed that most of the allies want to show a commitment but do not want to be put in a position where they would inflict or suffer major casualties," Rudd said.

That makes Canada unique, as its special forces soldiers are already engaged in combat operations — and getting hurt.

Rudd said if allies don't deploy in the numbers that had been expected, Canada could be forced to rethink its mission in Kandahar.

A spokesperson for Defence Minister Bill Graham said yesterday Canada's commitment remained unchanged.

"Afghanistan is at a critical juncture and the ongoing commitment of the international community is required. Canada remains committed," said Rene Filiatrault, spokesperson for Graham.

But the same domestic politics that have delayed a Dutch decision could be in play here in Canada if the Jan. 23 election produces another minority government, especially if the New Democrats are rewarded with a more influential role.

Already, NDP Leader Jack Layton has called for a halt to more troop deployments to Afghanistan beyond those already scheduled, saying Canada risks sliding "blindly" into war.

Meanwhile, the dangers troops face in Afghanistan were brought home yesterday by Edmonton-based soldiers recalling the day they were injured in Afghanistan. Private Ryan Crawford said his light-armoured vehicle (called a G-Wagon) was the reason he and Capt. Manuel Penchana-Moya weren't more seriously hurt in a bomb blast in Afghanistan Dec. 15.

Both men are now recovering in an Edmonton hospital.

__________________
You said you didn't give a fuck about hockey
And I never saw someone say that before
You held my hand and we walked home the long way
You were loosening my grip on Bobby Orr

http://dune.wikia.com/wiki/Leto_Atreides_I

Charlatan

Given the list you have presented I still don't agree. None of those nations has any desire for Global conquest (let alone attacking Canada).

To argue that the US is holding back these threats ignores the fact that by and large the reason these nations are a "problem" stems from the US (and others) messing with their sovreignty.

Iran, for example, had moved to democracy and was embracing moderate reforms when the US toppled their government and propped up the repressive Shah of Iran. Once this happened all dissent was squashed leading to a rise in fundamentalism that brought about the coup that brought Ayatollah Komeni into power.

Cuba, is it really a threat to the US now that the Soviet Union is gone (was it ever a threat on it's own?) or is it politically expedient to continue to punish Cuba?


What I am getting at is that while yes, we have enjoyed some peace because the guns of the US quell certain forms of conflict, I would argue that just as much conflict has been stirred up by the US military flexing its muscle around the globe. In the end, it's probably a wash.

As far as military expenditures are concerned, the US outspends EVERYBODY. There is no comparison. The US simply focuses too much of it's spending on the military.


I would agree that Canada should be making more of an effort in Africa... in fact, we have been engaged diplomatically in Africa for some time and have brought about a lot of changes to the positive (not all change comes from the end of a gun).


The answer to our lack of spending does lie south of the 49th but only in that the US is the only country that is any position to attack us. Name a nation that has the resources and the will to attack Canada. You can't. We are geographically isolated from any enemy we might actually have.

The two areas of military spending that I would like to see increase in Canada are:

1) More money for peacekeeping... we could spend more here.
2) More money for partrolling the North... as global warming increases, the Northern shipping lanes are opening. Protecting our sovereignty here is essential and can only be maintained by stepping up patrols... otherwise we might as well cede the North to the US, Norway or Denmark.

__________________
"My hands are on fire. Hands are on fire. Ain't got no more time for all you charlatans and liars."
- Old Man Luedecke

Aladdin Sane

The U.S. has no desire for global conquest. If this were so Canada would have long ago become the 51st state . It is just as likely that Canada is a nation that refuses to take responsibility for itself because of its own lack of self-confidence and unique identity. It is just as likely that Canada lacks international standing because anyone with a sliver of creativity and self-worth has long since left for New York. I reject all of these false characterizations.

And why aren't there countries that threaten Canada? Is it because we've entered a new age of peace, love, and understanding? Is it because all countries, except the U.S., have peaceful intentions? NO. The rogue states (Iran and North Korea, for example) are fearful of the consequences of aggressive action. And what would be the consequences, and who has the power to impose them? Like I said before, the world is not a vacuum.

When another genocidal force arises on the world stage and threatens us all, who will the West look to? You know and I know. One thing I am sure of, it won't be Canada.

(As an aside, you are wrong about Iran. They are becoming less, not more, democratic. The situation with Iran acquiring Nuclear weapons is quickly coming to a head. The negotiations with the Europeans has failed. Will Canada step in and stop them or will she continue to sit on the sidelines?)

__________________
Ceterum censeo Carthaginem esse delendam.

Charlatan

So Iran and North Korea are going to mount an assault on a nation that is on the other side of the world. It isn't going to happen. There are, maybe four nations that could mount this sort of amphibious/air assault - China, France, UK and Germany. But then what? What would they gain? Nothing.

(Edit: there are only two things the US would want from us... Water and Oil. They already own our oil via NAFTA so that leaves water... 10 to 1 odd our government will roll over on this issue was well).

Again, we are geographically isolated from all but the US... and the fact that you aren't likely about to attack us, nor could be offer a defense even if we started spending 20% of our GDP (but believe me the guerrila warfare that would result would be punishing to the US).

No you are right. Why should they, even if we had the money to spend. That said, when we are needed we are there. Afghanistan, Gulf War 1, Kosovo, Somalia, Yugoslavia, etc.

As Leto pointed out, we are much better at strike forces (like the very well respected JTF2). Seriously, we have 32 million people how big do you want our army to be?

Ummm... I was talking about the 1950s when the US toppled the democratically elected governement in Iran... they did this because Iran nationalized their oil. This is one of the "root causes" that many in the west don't like to talk about...

I stand by my belief that the US and it's expanded military presence stirs up as much trouble as it quells... In other words, if the US military was not in the Gulf region in the first place, in the kind of number they have been since the early 90s, we would not have the populatiry of fundamentalism that we have today in this region (tearing down democracy in Iran and propping up the Sauds has done more to squash the voice of moderation and democratic reform than anything else in the Middle East).

__________________
"My hands are on fire. Hands are on fire. Ain't got no more time for all you charlatans and liars."
- Old Man Luedecke

Aladdin Sane

The point is not that North Korea has designs on Canada. The point is that without the United States there would be a nation there to take its place. In light of history, I believe the biggest contenders were Nazi Germany, Imperial Japan, the Soviet Union, or some other tyrannical regime imposing a twisted vision upon the world.

History shows that the natural state of human affairs is not freedom and peace. Freedom is actually a historical aberration. One thing is certain: freedom does not defend and maintain itself. Peace must be purchased at a very high price. Unfortunately, many Western countries, Canada included, have decided not to contribute their fair share. It is worth repeating: Canada currently ranks 17th in NATO in terms of defence spending as a percentage of Gross Domestic Product (GDP). Only Luxembourg and Iceland spend less. Iceland and Luxembourg! Of the 27 countries represented by NATO, the Pacific Allies, and the Gulf Cooperation Council, Canada ranks 25th in defense spending and 11th in spending on foreign assistence. This is less than Canadians spend on video games! In 2004, Canadians spent an estimated $16.1 billion on alcoholic beverages, in comparison to the $14.1 billion they spent on their armed forces.
To quote an Interim Report by the Senate Committee on National Security and Defence, 38th Parliament – 1st Session (Sept. 2005):

But the issue of military preparedness goes beyond the practical. There will never be a day when all the world’s problems can be solved by niceness. If well-intentioned societies disarm – or allow their armed forces to deteriorate – there are plenty of mean and muscular warlords willing to take the helm.
In 2004-2005, defence spending accounted for 1 per cent of Canada’s GDP, roughly $420 per capita, and foreign aid spending accounted for 0.19 per cent of Canada’s GDP, roughly $65 per capita.
In 1990-1991, defence spending by Canada represented 1.6 per cent of GDP. As a percentage of Canada’s Gross Domestic Product defence spending has fallen a precipitous 62.5 per cent over the past 15 years.
Canada's per-capita spending on defence and foreign aid pales in comparison to many other developed countries. The $420 per capita Canada spent on defence in 2004 is far short of what either the United Kingdom (approximately $988 per capita), the Netherlands (approximately $793 per capita) or Australia (approximately $844 per capita) spent. Canada ranks just 128th out of 165 countries in defence spending as a percentage of GDP.
Of course there are countries in this world that spend what many Canadians would consider to be too high a percentage of their GDP on defense. But Canada most certainly isn’t one of them. Anyone who argues that Canada should set an example by beating its modest arsenal of swords into plowshares and thereby absent itself from international conflict is not just naïve – they undermine Canadians’ ability to survive as a nation and Canada’s obligation to contribute to a more just and stable world.

Canada's Military and the Legacy of Neglect

I don't think anything I might say or evidence I could produce would change your stance on this issue. Besides, I have invested all I care to at this time on this debate. I do appreciate your willingness to approach the debate in a rational manner, without personal invective. For that I consider you a Gentleman and a friend. Cheers.

__________________
Ceterum censeo Carthaginem esse delendam.

Charlatan

Cheers.

I believe that if the US were to reduce their spending (to sane levels) the slack would get picked up by other nations so that the total amount was spread a little more evenly.

I don't see the US taking the position where they will reduce their spending to this level.

Sure we could spend more on the military BUT or people do not seem to want this (and historically, the US has not wanted this and have done their damnedest to squash our military in the post WW2 world -- I guess we make them nervous) and seeing as we are a democracy we tend to go the way of the mandates of our elected officials.

In the end, our defence spending mirrors our DEFENSIVE needs and as I've pointed out, there are very few who could or even would attack us here. On a Global sense we rely in part on the size of the US (this does not mean that we do not contribute) but on a domestic front (the important part of Defensive spending) we are spend all that is neccessary.

Here's a thought. If there was an aggressive neighbour on our border (such as France and Germany have had historically) I am sure we would amass an army and spend the funds to defend ourselves.

Interestingly, the point I made about the North was echoed by our political leader in the election campaign today.

__________________
"My hands are on fire. Hands are on fire. Ain't got no more time for all you charlatans and liars."
- Old Man Luedecke

Leto

Historically, we have anteed up more than our fair share for the world wars, and for peace keeping. This is proven. We don't have toprove or justify our contribution. I would submit, ever. LIke I said though, we can certainly improve our strategic spend viz the military.

I'd like to know from Sane's post, that if "Canada currently ranks 17th in NATO in terms of defence spending as a percentage of Gross Domestic Product (GDP). Only Luxembourg and Iceland spend less. Iceland and Luxembourg!"

what about the rest of the countries (18 - 25) the numbers make no sense.

two points now that I agree with the Conservatives. The northern presence, and income splitting.

OH NO!!! I'm turning into an old guy, a conservative. What's happening to my Liberal values???

__________________
You said you didn't give a fuck about hockey
And I never saw someone say that before
You held my hand and we walked home the long way
You were loosening my grip on Bobby Orr

http://dune.wikia.com/wiki/Leto_Atreides_I

Charlatan

Give it time Leto... as these two positions become popular with the electorate, the Liberals will make it part of their platform as well.

It's what they do.


I have been thinking about this thread and I think the difference of opinion stems from the foundation of our different positions on the subject. Specifically:

I would argue that Freedom is a natural state of affairs. It is military force that strips those freedoms away.

Peace need not come at a cost but it frequently does. There have been many solutions that brought "peace" that did not come from the end of a gun.

The US fought a civil war and a war for independence but other nations have settled their differences peacefully (Canada for one and the split between Slovakia and Czech Republic for another).


The key here, as in all things, is a balance. Yes, we need standing armies to defend our nations and to lend assistance when needed to our allies abroad. BUT... something is clearly out of balance with the US outspends all of the other nations military budgets combined.

__________________
"My hands are on fire. Hands are on fire. Ain't got no more time for all you charlatans and liars."
- Old Man Luedecke

Aladdin Sane

There are 19 members of NATO.
There are 27 member within the three major western alliances (NATO, the Pacific Allies, and the Gulf Cooperation Council). Of these 27 countries, Canada ranks 25th in defense spending and 11th in spending on foreign assistence.

I encourage everyone (particularly Canadians) to read the report at http://www.parl.gc.ca/38/1/parlbus/c...#_Toc115156292

Also, as much as Canadians like to talk about their commitment to peace keeping and humanitarian assistence, I had imagined that their contributions in these areas would overshadow other nations of similar economic size and development. After examining the facts, it is clear that even in this Canada is at best mediocre.

__________________
Ceterum censeo Carthaginem esse delendam.

Charlatan

Thanks for that Link.

What an oddly written report... the wording is quite casual for a Report from the Senate (they actually used words like "triple whammy").

It was a good read and while I don't agree with their take on world politics in general (i.e. increased military precense is *not* going to reduce the terrorist threat) I do agree that we are underspending...

We need Big Ben to chime in on this.

__________________
"My hands are on fire. Hands are on fire. Ain't got no more time for all you charlatans and liars."
- Old Man Luedecke

Aladdin Sane

Right. And it is military force that reestablishes the "natural state of affairs" (human freedom). Tyranny does not end when democratic nations disarm. Hitler was not defeated by some Rousseauian fantasy. Canadians understood this well during World War II. They understood it during the Cold War.

I agree. It "need not." But in the real world of corruptable men, wishing won't move the mountain. Unfortunately, whether or not peace is achieved is not always in the hands of men of goodwill. British PM Neville Chamberlain negotiated away the freedom of a large part of Czechoslovakia to Hitler and claimed he had achieved "peace in our time." Six months later the Germans invaded and conquered the rest of Czechoslovakia. To coin a phrase, the lion does not lose his appetite for lamb when the sheppard is sleeping. The real lesson of history is that to be prepared for War is one of the most effectual means of preserving peace.


I agree. If Canada and other countries would spend their fair share, the United States could spend less. You need to understand that Canada is not setting itself apart from the United States by abrogating her responsibilities. The opposite is actually true. It is the Finlandization of Canada. Without the ability to defend yourself, you are becoming more dependent on the United States. I encourage you to read the report at http://www.parl.gc.ca/38/1/parlbus/c...#_Toc115156292

__________________
Ceterum censeo Carthaginem esse delendam.

Charlatan

I read the report and commented above.

I can agree that we are underspending and would have agreed we are underspending prior to reading this... my disagreement lies in the amount we are underspending and and a fundamental disagreement about the way the world works.

Historically, freedoms are taken by military forces controlled by the ruling powers. Kings maintained their power through military force... in a democracy, it is not as important to squash the will of your people through military might. Is this not one of the reasons the US is so strident about "the right to bear arms?"

The reality of Canada is that we do not need a massive standing army to defend our land from invaders. Unless the US is going to attack... it just isn't going to happen.

I would like to see our Governement live up to its committments of Defense, Diplomacy and Development. We are good at diplomacy and as a relatively neutral nation have served in this function well. We have devoted millions to foreign aid but no where near the .7% goal set out by Prime Minister Pearson in the 60s.

I can appreciate the situation you describe with Chamberlain... it is an old saw that those who want Military soloutions haul out. Sure it makes sense but it ignores the fact that I made above that many of the threats that face North America today are as a result of US military incursion on the rest of the world.

As I said before... it's about balance.

Yes, there are tinpot dictators out there that we should deal with as part of the global community. Canada was there in Rawanda and had we the military might as well as the diplomatic strenght we might have been able to halt the genocide... might.

In the end, I would argue that of Triple D the latter two Ds are the most important. Without development and diplomacy you cannot be successful if you intention is to make the world a better place. Too much emphasis on Military might as a means to solve international issues leads to exactly the problem that the US finds itself in today...

It is this might is right solution that creates the resentment that we are talking about...


So... while yes, we do need to spend more on our military I think the US needs to take a long hard look at their own international policies and the domestic policies that drive them (i.e. unchecked consumption of oil).

__________________
"My hands are on fire. Hands are on fire. Ain't got no more time for all you charlatans and liars."
- Old Man Luedecke

BigBen

Well, mine is not to reason why;

All that regular jazz aside, I was given a "Hard Copy" of that report. Remember paper, and not just links? It was heavy, and felt weird.

Yes, Canada has a tendency to spend a small amount (compared to others) on national defence.

We also have a very limited "Defence", per se, and instead concentrate our efforts on international peacekeeping efforts. Is that a bad thing? I am afraid I can't comment.

When you ask a soldier how much should be spent on National Defence, the correct answer should be : MORE, please. I contend that you would get the same answer from the US marine corps jarhead in Iraq right now. You could get the same response from your friendly neighborhood RCMP constable about how much should be spent on federal policing measures. MORE, please.

Canadian soldiers are well paid for the work they do, don't believe the people who cry poverty. It is a good job if you can get it. (please refer to THIS LINK for more information). The problem is not with the wages, it is the tempo of operations that is expected. Members are required to spend vast amounts of time away from loved ones, come home for short periods of time, and then back out again. It is no different than other armies, but it is still tough going.

Our equipment hit rock bottom in the early 90's, if my information is correct. We were using Viet Nam era technology, and the equipment was old. Just tired iron. We kept it in the best shape we could, but often found ourselves going without due to breakdowns. This is changing for the better, I am happy to say. How much more needs to be invested to create a renewed sense of vigour? Again, I hesitate to comment, but can say that things are much better.

When I first joined, Canada had 135 generals and 125 Leopard II tanks. We often commented that the rank structure was filled with old "Dead wood" and all we needed was a good war to get rid of the old guys who were holding things up. Not anymore. The old guys are gone, and people are often doing the work of two people because of a lack of personnel.

The CF has a weird process. I am curious about other armies, but there is a two stage process in human resource management: Recruiting and Retaining. When a company spends lots of time and money to select the best people and train them, does it not make sense to treat those people as valuable members and keep them around for a long time? We have a long way to go to achieve a proper retention policy.

I will end by saying this, and I have said it before: The canadian people do not realize how much the CF is made fun of in popular culture. The next time you see a comedian or sitcom that pokes fun at the proud members of the Canadian Forces, don't laugh. It is not funny. It is a trajedy that we as a society allow it. I am not a joke, and neither is the life I have chosen.

There is lots of misinformation about the CF, and Canadians allow themselves to remain ignorant (soldiers being issued bicycles, for christ's sake...).

__________________
3.141592654
Hey, if you are impressed with my memorizing pi to 10 digits, you should see the size of my penis.

Charlatan

Ben... what did you think of the tone of that piece? Was it just me or was it a bit flippant?

__________________
"My hands are on fire. Hands are on fire. Ain't got no more time for all you charlatans and liars."
- Old Man Luedecke

BigBen

The tone was casual, yet accusatory.

Look at the senate members that wrote it! Half of them are old army guys. Who wouldn't love to be in a position where the government had to listen to your story?

I did not like the tone, and thought that it distracted from the original piece.

__________________
3.141592654
Hey, if you are impressed with my memorizing pi to 10 digits, you should see the size of my penis.