TranceAddict Forums (www.tranceaddict.com/forums)
- Political Discussion / Debate
-- Canadian Policy Question?

Canadian Policy Question?

What would you think of a political party passing a referendum asking if they should (you don't have to be canadian to answer ):

Convert 100% of the canadian military to UN peace keepers.


Bad Reasons to keep em:

1. Nato - forget it (Cold war is long over, anything NatO currently represents should be channeled through the UN)
   
2. Defense - forget it (2 ice breakers with machine guns, and a couple of subs = a symbol of arctic sovereignty)
   
3. Defense - maybe the US will come for our fresh water... oh well
   

No, because the political scene can change overnight, anywhere in the world and it's not going to be much fun if you're down to harsh language and hockey sticks if it blows up and you have to militarise overnight.

Isolation helps, friendly neighbour helps too but it may not always be that way.

Compared to some "other" countries, military expenditures in Canada really aren't too significant either.

quote:

Originally posted by Lilith it's not going to be much fun if you're down to harsh language and hockey sticks if it blows up

LOL awesome but your forgot to include that the hockey sticks and foul words were fueled by beer

Yeah, there isn't a whole lot of spending on the military here. There's also significant discussions & disagreement with how our role in Afghanistan has changed from one of peacekeeping & rebuilding to peace-making & fighting.

I guess my own opinion is that it's all well and good to have a small, well-trained force, but I believe they need to be used correctly as well. I'm not so sure they are in our current engagement in Afghanistan (but there are several limiting factors at hand too...). The useless submarines that we bought from the British (not your fault, Brits...we bought them lol) are one of the worst defense purchases ever. There have been several smaller scale poor purchase decisions (imo) as well over the past 10 years or so.

Yeah, the decisions made regarding the use of our forces, and the procurement of new hardware are more important to me that to have them at all or not. They also serve as a National Guard type organization when there is some form of natural disaster etc.

quote:

Originally posted by pmoisse They also serve as a National Guard type organization when there is some form of natural disaster etc.

*sigh*
Not the primary job of CF. Yeah it looks good on the papers, but there are other civilian agencies whose purposes is to do these things.

As for military hardware purchases, I can just see the veins pop as Air Force is getting new transport planes and Army is rumoured to be getting new Leopards from Germany for Afghanistan. (What about the health care, the excuse for not giving military the money to do its job for many a years...)

And then we have poli sci profs running their mouth without having a clue what they are talking about and the media can't even get the details right when reporting stories about CF.

Yep. I'm bitter alright

Canada cannot sacrifice it's military for a "world peace" that will never happen. What leftist fringe group is advocating this? It's utopian.

What if North America is invaded by a combined force of Russia and China ? 0_o The American armed forces will have to defend both US and Canada.

quote:

Originally posted by Omega_M What if North America is invaded by a combined force of Russia and China ? 0_o The American armed forces will have to defend both US and Canada.

If America is invaded by a combined force of Russia and China theres two outcomes:
1) Someone uses a nuke, checkmate MAD.
2) The States and Canada get taken over and severely destroyed

quote:

Originally posted by venomX If America is invaded by a combined force of Russia and China theres two outcomes: 1) Someone uses a nuke, checkmate MAD. 2) The States and Canada get taken over and severely destroyed

I was thinking, since the only nations that have the means to take over Canada (US, Russia) are both democracies, then we (Canadians) could just hold a vote to cede from whoever took us over...

Then they'd have to invade again and again, and we'd hold vote after vote till they gave up!

quote:

Originally posted by Subey I was thinking, since the only nations that have the means to take over Canada (US, Russia) are both democracies, then we (Canadians) could just hold a vote to cede from whoever took us over... Then they'd have to invade again and again, and we'd hold vote after vote till they gave up!

You're assuming whoever takes over canada is going to give us referendums...

LOL. That'd be funny.

quote:

Originally posted by Subey I was thinking, since the only nations that have the means to take over Canada (US, Russia) are both democracies, then we (Canadians) could just hold a vote to cede from whoever took us over... Then they'd have to invade again and again, and we'd hold vote after vote till they gave up!

Flawless strategy

This is an illconceived idea to say the very least. With a multitude of nations questioning Canada's soveriegnty over our nothern territories, the opening of the northwest passage and vast mineral wealth in the north we need a larger and stronger military focused on the preservation of soveriegnty rather then a smaller weaker military designed for foriegn peace keeping. Soveriegnty can only be maintained if we have the ability to enforce our will. I'm all for retooling the military and redesigning it for modern warfare (ie. a force that can be deployed rapidly, move quickly, and designed for short to moderate length engagements), however, the idea of changing the CF into a completely non-offencive entity is moronic to say the very least. Giving up offencive capability is tantamount to giving up autonomy.

quote:

Originally posted by Moral Hazard This is an illconceived idea to say the very least. With a multitude of nations questioning Canada's soveriegnty over our nothern territories, the opening of the northwest passage and vast mineral wealth in the north we need a larger and stronger military focused on the preservation of soveriegnty

You've highlighted the fundamental flaw of the nation state...

You live on the side of the river with the gold mine, they live on the side of the river with the swamp.

No wonder it is so easy to say "Sucks to be you Swamper"



If you disagree with the above perspective. I'd be curious to know if you think the 1982 introduction of Equalization Payments into The Constitution was in error?

quote:

Originally posted by venomX The States and Canada get taken over and severely destroyed

Well atleast we could kill a few more enemy soldiers if we had the Canadian backup. 0_o

quote:

Originally posted by Subey You've highlighted the fundamental flaw of the nation state... You live on the side of the river with the gold mine, they live on the side of the river with the swamp. No wonder it is so easy to say "Sucks to be you Swamper" If you disagree with the above perspective. I'd be curious to know if you think the 1982 introduction of Equalization Payments into The Constitution was in error?

I'm not certain I see the flaw you are refering to. Are you suggesting that states should not have soveriegn control over the territory they occupy or that disparity in the distribution of resources creates conflict between states? If the former then I must strenuously disagree as no state has any authority if they do not have control of their own territory. If the later then I must agree, however, I see that more as a flaw in humanity rather then the nation state specifically.

With regard to equalization payments between provinces I am in full agreement with the idea. Being part of a confederation necessitates that all members recognize that the common good of the confederation supercedes the best interests of any one of the members. There is little doubt that it is in all the provinces best interests to spread the wealth as it ensures the economic viability of all. Moreover, with the amount of inter-provincial trade a flagging economy in any one province will have a ripple effect through the confederation. While provinces such as Ontario and Alberta may bitch to no end about how much money they send to those blood suckers in Quebec and Newfoundland it really is in all of our best interest. If not for Alberta getting in the equalization dollars from Ontario and Quebec in the eighties there would have been next to no development of the oil sands and they would still be sucking at the federal teet. Similarly if not for NF getting transfer payments now they wouldn't be able to afford development of their off shore and Labador oil and mineral wealth.

^The problem with the entire Canadian confederation concept is that that drunkard John A MacDonald didn't envision what his vision of Canada turned out to be, a highly decentralized loosely affiliated state.

Just look at the BNA act. All the stuff that MacDonald thought was not important (health care, education, natural resources, etc) turns out to be the most important stuff in a citizen's life.

Combine that with the fact that municipal govts and provincial govts are the ones that deeply affect a citizen's daily life, really, the federal govt doesn't do much in an average Joe's life.
Exactly what does the federal govt that is important to an average joe's life?

So, regionalism develop in Canada, as much as Canadians like to say that Canadians share similar values. It's hard to develop a national identity when every region has its own ideas. (And Canada was never strong on nationalism anyways)

Therefore, of course provinces will be pissed at each other for giving away money to poor ones and poor ones thinking the rich ones aren't sharing.

Maybe I'm thinking a bit cynical and pessimistic here, but I've never figured out exactly what is Canada in a national context.

quote:

Originally posted by EvilTree ^The problem with the entire Canadian confederation concept is that that drunkard John A MacDonald didn't envision what his vision of Canada turned out to be, a highly decentralized loosely affiliated state. Just look at the BNA act. All the stuff that MacDonald thought was not important (health care, education, natural resources, etc) turns out to be the most important stuff in a citizen's life. Combine that with the fact that municipal govts and provincial govts are the ones that deeply affect a citizen's daily life, really, the federal govt doesn't do much in an average Joe's life. Exactly what does the federal govt that is important to an average joe's life? So, regionalism develop in Canada, as much as Canadians like to say that Canadians share similar values. It's hard to develop a national identity when every region has its own ideas. (And Canada was never strong on nationalism anyways) Therefore, of course provinces will be pissed at each other for giving away money to poor ones and poor ones thinking the rich ones aren't sharing. Maybe I'm thinking a bit cynical and pessimistic here, but I've never figured out exactly what is Canada in a national context.

I really have to disagree with you here. The BNA gives "residual powers" to the federal government. Residual powers mean that the federal government has jurisdiction over anything not specified in the BNA. Without question this was an attempt to ensure the federal government would become stronger with the passage of time... and stands in stark contrast to the US constitution where residual powers fall to the state. Moreover, the federal government has the taxation powers. While the provinces may have jurisdiction over education, health, etc (natural resources are a shared jurisdiction... some fed, some prov) the federal government funds those projects. This gives the feds the power to dictate how the money get's used... which is how the Canada Health Act came about (essentially the feds said "Provinces, you will do this as we tell you too or you get cut off").

The BNA has little to do with the rise of regionalizm. Provincial strength is more the product of the high courts in the UK and later in Canada. There were many jurisdictional challenges to the BNA in its early days. In most of the challenges the Judiciary Counsel (UK court that had control over Canadian constitutional matters prior to the Westminister Act 1932) sided with the provinces. This trend reversed slightly after 1932, however, in many respects the Supreme Court was handcuffed by the JC's earlier decisions. This resulted in a significant weakening of the Federal government from the powers it was prescribed under the BNA.

I think it should be pointed out that most of the regional clevage is based on economics and representation rather then jurisdictional issues (with the clear exception of Quebec where the clevage is cultural). The Atlantic Provinces feel economically disadvantaged, thus they seek to extract more from the equalization system. Ontario has always been a "have" province, they feel taken advantage of as they continually give to the other provinces. The same is now true for BC and Alberta despite the fact that they were takers for a very long time. In addition to the economic disparity there is a representational disparity. As we are a representation by population representative democracy each provice gets a different number of seats in the House due to their population differences. With Ontario and Quebec comprising the majority of the Canadian population they hold the majority of the seats. Understandably, legislators from On and Qc have directed federal policy to serve their interests. This has lead to the other regions feeling as though they have little or no power in the federal government. Being marginalized is powerful motivation for one to want independence.

quote:

Originally posted by Subey I was thinking, since the only nations that have the means to take over Canada (US, Russia) are both democracies, then we (Canadians) could just hold a vote to cede from whoever took us over... Then they'd have to invade again and again, and we'd hold vote after vote till they gave up!

I wouldn't just say US & Russia a few more countries would have the means to invade Canada in a military sense. Your a Dominion of the British commonwealth, so if anyone messed with Canada I'm quite sure the UK would get involved.

I'd stick with Nato if I was you. The Cold War is over but we're all spying on one another still just not at the same level as twenty odd years ago. There will always be that slight sense of distrust why everyone still has nukes etc.

Powered by: vBulletin
Copyright © 2000-2021, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.