Canada has a great history as both a strong offensive military, and a peacekeeping military. I think instead of helping the Americans occupy countries, Canada should become elite peacekeepers/nation builders & the world leader in natural disaster search & rescue. By doing that I believe Canada would become a passive world leader, helping trade, and business. If we give our assitance to the civil fractions of countries in Kaos. Giving the people the option to call us in for backup should they eventually need our support, Canada would be more successful in their missions. Currently we're in Afganistan fighting the terrorists, but at the same time policing the drug trade, making poor civilians detest us. That makes it easier for the terrorists to convert more civilians into terrorist fighters. Occupying never works. Look at the States...
2006-08-10 19:16:59 · 7 answers · asked by nucknuck 1 in Politics & Government ➔ Military
Canada doesn't have the support of the population to do really anything with it's military. Plus we do not have the resources to do this. At any given time we could have 20 - 30 countries asking us for military assistance, we are lucky right now if we could help one country. I like your idea, but the truth is and I don't think of it as a bad truth is that your peacekeeping idea has to be implemented by international bodies and Canada can be a willing participant, pretty similar to how it is now. Canada's military role should be border, coastal enforcement, troops to help our country in emergencies, and a decent size force of troops and modern weapons to be used by NATO and the UN and that is about it, and that's about all we can do.
2006-08-11 08:44:48 · answer #1 · answered by not too bright 2 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Well, I dont know about you but to be a truly effective peacekeeper and peace-enforcer (the latter is almost inevitably the one being called upon)...Canada needs a powerful Military to execute those missions. Lets see...your Air Force only has 120 or so CF-18s that can really bang the peace-breakers, your Army is soon to have no tanks and only some 100 heavy-gun Strykers (those same Yank 8-wheeler APCs that get RPG'd in Iraq), your total army personnel has less than 70000 men and women, and while your navy is respectable its too fracking small (16 destroyers/frigates and 4 subs) and too limited in capability (no Tomahawks or any really offensive weapons). Reading your question makes me wonder whether your "revolution" actually intends to make Canada's military even weaker than it already is...
Of course you could counter me by saying that thats the problem... that a softer military is better for peacekeeping than the overtly powerful war machine of the USA...but remember "Blackhawk Down" and the Rwandan tragedy??? the sides in any conflict you are trying to mitigate eventually will attack the peacekeepers too, and being weak and sissy armed wont make the peacekeepers any more safer nor make the peace any more keepable.
BTW...so what if the Yanks are policing the drug trade...you saying then we should let them Afghans grow more dope (and you do know the proceeds there go to Osama and Fiends now do you)??? Perhaps the better approach is to destroy the drug trade but at the same time give them better paying jobs for substitutes...right???
oops sorry...the actual number of CF-18s the Canadians have is only 98 not 120...didnt update my info..dang!
2006-08-10 20:06:47 · answer #2 · answered by betterdeadthansorry 5 · 0⤊ 2⤋
FYI-I'm an American 25 yr old male
Things are never as simple as you've described. It would be nice if it were though. I wouldn't mind seeing Canada become more prominent.
Here's the catch though. The more people you come into contact with, the more people you'll upset. The more places you send an army, the more people will hate that army. And you may even genuinely help some people along the way, maybe even a lot of people.
But through some twist of human psychology, hate is stonger than love... at least, it lasts longer anyway.
To conclude, Canada could revolutionize their military and its mission, but it would certainly be a larger headache than benefit. Plus, any upset or adjustment in international balances of power are bound to cause unforseen, and unwanted problems in diplomacy, economic relationships, and other areas.
2006-08-10 19:37:48 · answer #3 · answered by Jay H 1 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Shut up hoser-go get some beer and bacon and sit down for a minute.
Canada has always helped America, and they should, because we haven't blown them up-yet. Now you keep talking that trash and we might have to, where is your mother? You wouldn't say such things in front of her.
You know I'm kidding don't you?
Look dude, we border and look out for each others interests, even if we don't agree on firewood. Don't try to isolate your country, we help each other in ways you'll find out about later. You are part of the America's, act like it. Your fight is against the Islamist who want to destroy and kill your brothers, doesn't that mean anything to you? Use your first-aid kit to nurture the wounds of the heroes of Canada who fight for peace and freedom. God bless Canada-and their heroic efforts to stabilize our Earth-an American.
2006-08-10 19:55:42 · answer #4 · answered by phwar68 5 · 0⤊ 1⤋
Back when there was peacekeeping there was peace to be kept. What do you propose-when the Taliban come to burn down a girl's school Canadian Forces could ask them to burn down just half of it and kill only half the teachers as a "compromise"?
2006-08-10 19:30:19 · answer #5 · answered by michinoku2001 7 · 0⤊ 1⤋
Yes, we should - good idea
2006-08-10 19:22:49 · answer #6 · answered by jonnygaijin 5 · 0⤊ 0⤋
What on earth are you smoking?
2006-08-10 19:22:56 · answer #7 · answered by badbear 4 · 0⤊ 1⤋