Canada's New War Campaign

[FreeRights]

Peace through superior firepower...

Now that's credibility

Is that Jesus' stamp of approval on the tail section deeming it an acceptable Christian instrument of Peace?

Abortion = bad
gay = bad
multi-million dollar killing machines = doing your christian duty to spread god's message of peace and love

Definitly not the canada I grew up in and not the canada i want for my kids ....

this reminds me of how a lot of the "young punks" carry on nowadays - they travel in packs (usually packs that no single member alone would ever challenge anyone) but when in a group become a bunch of tough guys. Canada would NEVER act on its own (mostly because it couldn't and would be laughable) against any country, yet when there are several other bullies on board Canada loves to throw a few kicks while they are down just to flex that military budget (and help give it some credence so they can justify increases).

Canada used to know its role and the people stood behind it - now...... its pretty contentious to say the least.

Big kudos to the US of A for figuring out how to get their "mission accomplished" without having to put their face as the leader of the charge - they are learning

I don't even know where to begin, because literally every single thing you said here is wrong.

[Corneliousrooster]

I don't even know where to begin, because literally every single thing you said here is wrong.

Really? So we are living in the same style of Canada and representation of ourselves as in the 70's? 80's? even the 90's? Perhaps you need to reevaluate our history and compare it to now - something has clearly changed. the term "peace keeping mission" was common, i haven't heard that term spoken in a while.........

You think our "war efforts" compliment christian teachings?

Where exactly did I go wrong - please do correct my ignorance that is so blatant to you.......

[FreeRights]

I don't even know where to begin, because literally every single thing you said here is wrong.

Really? So we are living in the same style of Canada and representation of ourselves as in the 70's? 80's? even the 90's? Perhaps you need to reevaluate our history and compare it to now - something has clearly changed. the term "peace keeping mission" was common, i haven't heard that term spoken in a while.........

You think our "war efforts" compliment christian teachings?

Where exactly did I go wrong - please do correct my ignorance that is so blatant to you.......

First, I don't even get where this Christian stuff you're saying is coming from. A soldier may have put the logo there, but that doesn't mean the Conservatives or Jesus did.

Decades ago, Canada did participate in a lot of peace keeping missions, yes. But if we believe that what we've done should be the sole determining factor of what we do in the future, I believe that we'll be at a massive disadvantage, and this applies to every situation.

In terms of our military, it used to be a joke. We provided peacekeeping support because our military was not capable of providing combat forces. Now, our military is modern and capable of providing a wide variety of services. In addition, if you're suggesting that the world is also the same as it was in the 60's, 70's, and 80's, that would also be false. The world changes and Canada would be at a greater risk if we didn't change as well.

[Jack Handey]

In terms of our military, it used to be a joke. We provided peacekeeping support because our military was not capable of providing combat forces. Now, our military is modern and capable of providing a wide variety of services.

I disagree with these new types of services this country is offering the world.http://article.wn.com/view/2011/05/30/Nato_strike_kills_12_children_in_Afghanistan/http://thetruthiswhere.wordpress.com/2011/05/25/nato-bombing-of-tripoli-on-tuesday-may-24th-kills-19-civilians-wounds-150/

[Corneliousrooster]

First, I don't even get where this Christian stuff you're saying is coming from. A soldier may have put the logo there, but that doesn't mean the Conservatives or Jesus did.

Decades ago, Canada did participate in a lot of peace keeping missions, yes. But if we believe that what we've done should be the sole determining factor of what we do in the future, I believe that we'll be at a massive disadvantage, and this applies to every situation.

In terms of our military, it used to be a joke. We provided peacekeeping support because our military was not capable of providing combat forces. Now, our military is modern and capable of providing a wide variety of services. In addition, if you're suggesting that the world is also the same as it was in the 60's, 70's, and 80's, that would also be false. The world changes and Canada would be at a greater risk if we didn't change as well.

I don't think anyone would dispute the Christian background, morals and principles that the Harper Govn't expouses - My statement was sarcasm - the war machine in and of itself is symbol enough to contradict anything christian based.

On the grand scheme of things canada's military is still a joke if you are comparing our "might", abilities, equipment with that of many countries. To begin engaging in acts of aggression with what we currently have is foolish (See progress in afganistan for further evidence). Canada had a very clear role in the world that I feel most Canadians accepted and were proud of for decades - and now Canada is faking its way to a new role that doesn't fit the people/equipment or current "might". Since when has Canada been known as "liberators"? Canada does not have the forces to be liberators nor should they.

[Captain Awesome]

We're part of NATO. Whatever they decided we have to participate whether it is a peacekeeping mission or "liberation".

[FreeRights]

First, I don't even get where this Christian stuff you're saying is coming from. A soldier may have put the logo there, but that doesn't mean the Conservatives or Jesus did.

Decades ago, Canada did participate in a lot of peace keeping missions, yes. But if we believe that what we've done should be the sole determining factor of what we do in the future, I believe that we'll be at a massive disadvantage, and this applies to every situation.

In terms of our military, it used to be a joke. We provided peacekeeping support because our military was not capable of providing combat forces. Now, our military is modern and capable of providing a wide variety of services. In addition, if you're suggesting that the world is also the same as it was in the 60's, 70's, and 80's, that would also be false. The world changes and Canada would be at a greater risk if we didn't change as well.

I don't think anyone would dispute the Christian background, morals and principles that the Harper Govn't expouses - My statement was sarcasm - the war machine in and of itself is symbol enough to contradict anything christian based.

On the grand scheme of things canada's military is still a joke if you are comparing our "might", abilities, equipment with that of many countries. To begin engaging in acts of aggression with what we currently have is foolish (See progress in afganistan for further evidence). Canada had a very clear role in the world that I feel most Canadians accepted and were proud of for decades - and now Canada is faking its way to a new role that doesn't fit the people/equipment or current "might". Since when has Canada been known as "liberators"? Canada does not have the forces to be liberators nor should they.

You're understating the capabilities of the Canadian Forces. For one, we were the primary force in one of Afghanistan's most volatile, dangerous regions (Kandahar) since the start. While our Forces aren't the size of, say, the United States, we still have a very capable, well trained, and equipped military force that can now conduct combat and peacekeeping operations overseas.

The issue with your response is that you completely ignore my suggestion that Canada has to change with the world. It's a more dangerous place, and we have to respond to that.

[Corneliousrooster]

The issue with your response is that you completely ignore my suggestion that Canada has to change with the world. It's a more dangerous place, and we have to respond to that.

Canada could "be" the change rather than following a failing war machine

More dangerous then when? What exactly is this "danger" that only a war machine can be the solution?

I agree that getting involved in bombing campaigns will increase the future danger to canada, but i don't see how the world is any more dangerous today than it was 50 years ago (especially the countries with whom we have decided to attack)

We're part of NATO. Whatever they decided we have to participate whether it is a peacekeeping mission or "liberation".

So if we keep buying the stuff we will be EXPECTED, by NATO, to act more aggressively in the future - you are saying Canada has no free thought or will in NATO?

[Bagotricks]

Canada considering international bases : Mackay

http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/story/2 ... bases.html

Well, you voted (or didn't vote at all) for it Canada.

We are in the most amount of debt in Canadian history and the Conservatives are talking about cutting core social services, after shifting the tax burden from people who make millions and billions, to YOU who lives paycheck to paycheck. Now this.

Now they think that we need to set up and build international military bases.

Yesterday Steven Harper said "Conservative values are Canadian values". Since when is cutting social services to pay for international military bases so we can readily fight in US lead wars when the country is in DEBT considered to be a "Canadian" value?

[Captain Awesome]

We're part of NATO. Whatever they decided we have to participate whether it is a peacekeeping mission or "liberation".

So if we keep buying the stuff we will be EXPECTED, by NATO, to act more aggressively in the future - you are saying Canada has no free thought or will in NATO?

Being a member of NATO doesn't have anything to do with buying stuff. Being a member of NATO requires members to participate in NATO exercises, planning sessions, participate in missions, and provide mutual defense to its members.

When you are a member of something you have rights just like you have responsibilities. You can't pick and choose what you will or won't do.

[Corneliousrooster]

We're part of NATO. Whatever they decided we have to participate whether it is a peacekeeping mission or "liberation".

So if we keep buying the stuff we will be EXPECTED, by NATO, to act more aggressively in the future - you are saying Canada has no free thought or will in NATO?

Being a member of NATO doesn't have anything to do with buying stuff. Being a member of NATO requires members to participate in NATO exercises, planning sessions, participate in missions, and provide mutual defense to its members.

When you are a member of something you have rights just like you have responsibilities. You can't pick and choose what you will or won't do.

I realize being a member of NATO doesn't have anything to do with buying stuff. But WE ARE buying stuff. and then NATO asks us to use it. We have been a member of NATO for a long time, I don't remember them asking us to bomb countries before? Perhaps if canada invested in more humanitarian/peacekeeping implements like we had been known for, Canadians could continue to be proud of their serviceman without having blood on our hands. WHY LIBYA? What is so special about the Libyan cause that so many other African countries peoples have been left to fend for themselves without canada dropping bombs? (there is no shortage of atrocities being committed in many african nations)

It seems NATO is picking and choosing what in will get involved in based on American interests ......

[Captain Awesome]

We have been a member of NATO for a long time, I don't remember them asking us to bomb countries before?

So, you don't remember Bosnia war, Kosovo war, war in Afghanistan, and hunting pirates in Somalia? I think all of them involved bombing.

[FreeRights]

The issue with your response is that you completely ignore my suggestion that Canada has to change with the world. It's a more dangerous place, and we have to respond to that.

Canada could "be" the change rather than following a failing war machine

More dangerous then when? What exactly is this "danger" that only a war machine can be the solution?

I agree that getting involved in bombing campaigns will increase the future danger to canada, but i don't see how the world is any more dangerous today than it was 50 years ago (especially the countries with whom we have decided to attack)

50 years ago, we obviously had the threat of war with the Soviet Union, but our biggest national security concern at that time was war and espionage. Now, we are concerned about terrorism - a very real threat, due to the amount of failed nation states that exist worldwide. If we do what you're suggesting, and do nothing at all, it doesn't help them rebuild. The threat still exists even after we leave. And if you don't believe that Canada is at risk of terrorism, you've got to wake up.

Canada considering international bases : Mackay

http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/story/2 ... bases.html

Well, you voted (or didn't vote at all) for it Canada.

We are in the most amount of debt in Canadian history and the Conservatives are talking about cutting core social services, after shifting the tax burden from people who make millions and billions, to YOU who lives paycheck to paycheck. Now this.

Now they think that we need to set up and build international military bases.

Yesterday Steven Harper said "Conservative values are Canadian values". Since when is cutting social services to pay for international military bases so we can readily fight in US lead wars when the country is in DEBT considered to be a "Canadian" value?

Depending on what we do with them, military bases internationally may actually save us money. Right now, we're spending astronomical amounts of money to basically "rent" other nations' military bases, especially for deployment to Afghanistan, and to many other operations worldwide. International bases may also create jobs for Canadians, since all jobs on Canadian bases are either hired through the military, or by contract (the Commissionaires provide security, for example).

[Bagotricks]

Canada considering international bases : Mackay

http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/story/2 ... bases.html

Well, you voted (or didn't vote at all) for it Canada.

We are in the most amount of debt in Canadian history and the Conservatives are talking about cutting core social services, after shifting the tax burden from people who make millions and billions, to YOU who lives paycheck to paycheck. Now this.

Now they think that we need to set up and build international military bases.

Yesterday Steven Harper said "Conservative values are Canadian values". Since when is cutting social services to pay for international military bases so we can readily fight in US lead wars when the country is in DEBT considered to be a "Canadian" value?

Depending on what we do with them, military bases internationally may actually save us money. Right now, we're spending astronomical amounts of money to basically "rent" other nations' military bases, especially for deployment to Afghanistan, and to many other operations worldwide. International bases may also create jobs for Canadians, since all jobs on Canadian bases are either hired through the military, or by contract (the Commissionaires provide security, for example).

Save us money?

Canada is leaving Afghanistan, and they are currently selling off all their stuff in order to save money instead of shipping it back to Canada. So we don't need a base there.

To say we are going to save money by building international bases has to follow the assumption that Canada is now going to jump on board with the United States in their middle east empire building war machine for the next 50 years. Is Canada planning on joining into a few wars continuously for the next 50 years? Obviously so if we are planning on building bases - again - Canadians elected a PM that has a inferiority complex when it comes to military might and now we are seeing true colours. We had international bases when this thing called " the cold war" was going on, remember? No need now.

You build a base and you have to staff it - even on Christmas. You have to fly people back and forth and paint the fences year round - even where there is no war going on. The only way it would ever be economical - would be if we plan on fighting continuous battles and sorties for the next 50 or so years. Is that the plan?

The reason I ask if that is the plan - is that Canada is in DEBT. We are going to slash things like women's shelters and medical services (wait and see). If the priority of the government is to start building bases IN ORDER for us to be able to join into wars and make it economically viable to do so - you really have to question what the hell is the government thinking?

Since we are part of NATO we have use of all NATO bases around the world. Renting is cheaper if your only going to be in town for a year, right? But if your planning on raising a family and building a treehouse - that's when you BUY.

So is that the plan? Who's kids are going to fight these wars and staff these bases?

...and since when is this a "Canadian" value.

[FreeRights]

You have a very strange way of analyzing facts. Having international capabilities does not mean Canada is going to jump into wars. I don't even have any idea how you even came up with that ridiculous idea.

Save us money?

Canada is leaving Afghanistan, and they are currently selling off all their stuff in order to save money instead of shipping it back to Canada. So we don't need a base there.

To say we are going to save money by building international bases has to follow the assumption that Canada is now going to jump on board with the United States in their middle east empire building war machine for the next 50 years. Is Canada planning on joining into a few wars continuously for the next 50 years? Obviously so if we are planning on building bases - again - Canadians elected a PM that has a inferiority complex when it comes to military might and now we are seeing true colours. We had international bases when this thing called " the cold war" was going on, remember? No need now.

We were using Camp Mirage in the UAE until they kicked us out. Now, we're spending more money transporting through Cyprus for Afghanistan. The concept, which I've already spelled out, it that providing international bases (or working with other countries to do so) would allow Canada to have international operation capabilities, so when we do have to act, we have the means to do so. Prior to Afghanistan, and even now to some extent, we cannot do this without relying on other countries.

You build a base and you have to staff it - even on Christmas. You have to fly people back and forth and paint the fences year round - even where there is no war going on. The only way it would ever be economical - would be if we plan on fighting continuous battles and sorties for the next 50 or so years. Is that the plan?

How is that the "only way" it'd be economical? Bases may need to be staffed, but there are a lot of staff in Canada regularly that could instead be posted overseas. We currently have postings around the world on rented or leased military bases that we have been using long-term.

The reason I ask if that is the plan - is that Canada is in DEBT. We are going to slash things like women's shelters and medical services (wait and see). If the priority of the government is to start building bases IN ORDER for us to be able to join into wars and make it economically viable to do so - you really have to question what the hell is the government thinking?

No, we question what the hell you're thinking. First, nothing suggests we'll be fighting more wars - only that we are capable to. Second, you're making allegations on what the government is going to cut instead, and it's just speculation. You have so many flaws in your argument that your point is completely moot and irrelevant.

So is that the plan? Who's kids are going to fight these wars and staff these bases?

...and since when is this a "Canadian" value.

For the record, there's huge people willingly applying to and, in most cases, getting turned down to join the Canadian Forces. The people who are in are quite aware the possible risks, so I don't buy your "OMG WHO'S KIDS ARE GONNA FIGHT IT LOL" comment. The people who join who they will fight and, in most cases, they want to.

It sounds like you just have a skewed opinion of what Canadian values are, and you're angry and want to take it out on the military. Remember, Canadians elected the Conservative Government - twice. Canadians are well aware of the foreign policy MacKay will lobby, and we obviously support it, otherwise we wouldn't have voted for it.

In a world that is more dangerous than it has been in a very long time, I think this foreign policy and the new services and use that our military is capable of performing is good.