Canada's Future

  1. Philosophy Forum
  2. » General Discussion
  3. » Canada's Future

Get Email Updates Email this Topic Print this Page

Reply Mon 14 Jul, 2008 05:41 pm
Canada has a very poor military, obviously, and needs to get better. Canada has much of the world's resources including uranium, oil, and fresh water. Canada is also the second largest country. And yet the military it pathetic.

In the future when resources are gone from other countries what becomes of Canada? What will the USA be able to do about anything. Especially when it comes to fresh water where countries have already lost so much due to global warming. I doubt Canada is going to be able to say "here, have some water, all of you, we'll just run out or at least have a hard time keeping up with all of your demands but its no problem" :rolleyes:.

Is there going to be war in the future because of this?Sad
 
Theaetetus
 
Reply Mon 14 Jul, 2008 06:02 pm
@Holiday20310401,
It is inevitable that Canada, the U.S. and Mexico will form a Union like the EU. It has already started with the SPP (The Security and Prosperity Partnership of North America).
 
Holiday20310401
 
Reply Mon 14 Jul, 2008 06:49 pm
@Theaetetus,
Yes that makes everything just go away:rolleyes:
 
Didymos Thomas
 
Reply Tue 15 Jul, 2008 06:47 am
@Holiday20310401,
I always thought their diminutive military was an asset. When was the last time Canada was stuck with tens of thousands of combat troops half a world away engaged in an futile bloody mess?
 
Holiday20310401
 
Reply Tue 15 Jul, 2008 10:35 am
@Didymos Thomas,
Yeah thats true, but I meant more for defensive reasons. I just think that perhaps we could see some eastern countries stranded for resources and deciding that Canada would make a mandatory target. And if Russia gets involved it could be a cold war. Plus Iran is developing nuclear technology. So what can the USA do to defend, and Mexico, lol.
 
Didymos Thomas
 
Reply Tue 15 Jul, 2008 10:49 am
@Holiday20310401,
Monroe Doctrine, baby.
 
Holiday20310401
 
Reply Tue 15 Jul, 2008 11:30 am
@Didymos Thomas,
Perhaps a wikipedia link would suffice? lol. ... ... no really don't.
 
Didymos Thomas
 
Reply Tue 15 Jul, 2008 01:01 pm
@Holiday20310401,
I haven't checked, but I imagine wikipedia will give a good account of the Monroe Doctrine.

It's an important part of US history, and really the whole history of the Americas. The Monroe Doctrine was outlined by President Monroe in an address to Congress. US interests were two fold - keeping the still young nation out of European political turmoil while protecting the nation's trading interests. Next to this declaration of neutrality in European affairs was a stern warning to European powers not to further colonize the New World or interfere with the political affairs of the emerging nations in the Americas which had recently cast off the imperial rule of Europe. Should European powers attempt to colonize or disrupt the newly formed American governments, the US would consider such action as hostile towards the US. The primary concern of US politicians was the Spanish attempt to regain lost colonies in central and south America - a real threat to American trade given the large south American market (which was seen as far more significant than the market in the US), and the collaboration of France and Russia with the Spanish dream of rebuilding it's vast and now lost empire in the Americas. France and Russia had their own motivations - they were not just being good friends to Spain. France also had an eye for lost territory in the Americas (Napoleon took to selling French interests in the Americas to fund his wars in Europe), and Russia was moving into Alaska having conquered a huge swath of northern Asia.

The Monroe Doctrine has been reinterpreted by different US leaders to suit current needs. Theodore Roosevelt assumed that the US could go so far as to intervene in the affairs of American nations for the sake of economic stability - European powers had loaned many of the small American nations money which they were having trouble repaying.

An even more modern interpretation, which I suggest as a pragmatic response to the fears you have expressed here (though I ultimately oppose the idea), would be that the US is justified in economic and military intervention to stabilize American nations against the potential commercial and military aggression of any world power, such as China or Iran.
 
Holiday20310401
 
Reply Tue 15 Jul, 2008 01:26 pm
@Didymos Thomas,
Why did the USA go to war against the middle east instead of China. Control over china would make the USA economically much more efficient right?

And in terms of stability it wouldn't differ from the impossibility of controlling Iraq and Afghanistan.

China's society is very much immoral as the way extremist groups in the middle east have associated themselves as.
 
Didymos Thomas
 
Reply Tue 15 Jul, 2008 01:33 pm
@Holiday20310401,
Quote:
Why did the USA go to war against the middle east instead of China. Control over china would make the USA economically much more efficient right?


China has nukes, over one billion people and owns a huge chunk of US national debt.

Quote:
And in terms of stability it wouldn't differ from the impossibility of controlling Iraq and Afghanistan.


Right - invading the Middle East and invading China are bad ideas for the US - I say this as an idealist and from a purely pragmatic foreign policy perspective.

Quote:
China's society is very much immoral as the way extremist groups in the middle east have associated themselves as.


China's society is no more immoral the US society, or Canadian society, or any other society.
 
Holiday20310401
 
Reply Tue 15 Jul, 2008 08:20 pm
@Didymos Thomas,
Lol, I need to watch the news. I didn't know China had nukes yet. And isn't China communist? What is ethical? I'd say Democracy at first glance but I don't really know much about the average Chinese citizen. And it certainly says something that a lot of Chinese immigrants come into America. And the only 'American' thats moving to China is the companies globalizing, which my dad is ticked off about.
 
Ruthless Logic
 
Reply Wed 16 Jul, 2008 12:37 am
@Didymos Thomas,
Didymos Thomas wrote:
I always thought their diminutive military was an asset. When was the last time Canada was stuck with tens of thousands of combat troops half a world away engaged in an futile bloody mess?



The United States Military in Iraq is composed of highly trained and motivated individuals conducting successful missions, while spectacularly meeting the operational goal of destroying the enemy, unlike the futile attempt of underachieving community college students and their related academic goals consisting of educational subsistence.
 
Theaetetus
 
Reply Wed 16 Jul, 2008 01:18 am
@Holiday20310401,
Holiday20310401 wrote:
Lol, I need to watch the news. I didn't know China had nukes yet. And isn't China communist? What is ethical? I'd say Democracy at first glance but I don't really know much about the average Chinese citizen. And it certainly says something that a lot of Chinese immigrants come into America. And the only 'American' thats moving to China is the companies globalizing, which my dad is ticked off about.


China has had nukes since at least 1970.
List of states with nuclear weapons - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 
VideCorSpoon
 
Reply Wed 16 Jul, 2008 10:44 am
@Theaetetus,
WHY THE US INVADED THE MIDDLE EAST INSTEAD OF CHINA

Holiday, you had asked why the US had gone to war with the middle east instead of china. The middle east is one of those specific, strategic areas of the world where everything just seems to converge. If people are astonished by coalition troops in the middle east, then they haven't looked too far back into history. The Macedonians tried in vain to hold onto the region to no prevail after the conquest of Alexander. The ancient Romans had the highest concentration of Legions along the eastern boundaries, the Mongol empire had been cautious when dealing with the middle east, the British had tried to hold Iraq and Afghanistan during the first and second world war (which is why the British occupy Basra today, not because it is just a given position to them, but because it has always been the British area of interest.) It's even a problem for the locals. The people of Ur, the Persians, the Ottoman Turks (whose empire just fell a hundred years ago) have all tried and failed to hold some sort of structure in the region.

People will say "it's for oil" or "Bushes Dad told him to" or "war mongering!" No. The middle east has and will always be the locus of a major conflict every century (as it always has been) because it is a nexus point of civilizations and trade, etc.

UNEASY RELATIONSHIPTrillions ASYMETRIC WEAPONSNUKES
 
Theaetetus
 
Reply Wed 16 Jul, 2008 11:22 am
@VideCorSpoon,
VideCorSpoon wrote:
The first and formost rule of international law is "all treaties MUST BE OBSERVED" Stay tuned.


Of course the U.S. only observes the treaties when convenient to national policy. As soon as an international agreement stands in the way the U.S. ignores it.
 
Didymos Thomas
 
Reply Wed 16 Jul, 2008 11:37 am
@Theaetetus,
Quote:
Lol, I need to watch the news. I didn't know China had nukes yet. And isn't China communist? What is ethical? I'd say Democracy at first glance but I don't really know much about the average Chinese citizen. And it certainly says something that a lot of Chinese immigrants come into America. And the only 'American' thats moving to China is the companies globalizing, which my dad is ticked off about.


No reason to equate the morality of the government with the morality of Chinese society. Chinese government - brutal and oppressive. Chinese society - rich and beautiful.

Quote:
The United States Military in Iraq is composed of highly trained and motivated individuals conducting successful missions, while spectacularly meeting the operational goal of destroying the enemy, unlike the futile attempt of underachieving community college students and their related academic goals consisting of educational subsistence.


You probably want the LSD to ware off before you post on these forums, Ruthless.

Quote:
Of course the U.S. only observes the treaties when convenient to national policy. As soon as an international agreement stands in the way the U.S. ignores it.


Same is true for all countries.
 
VideCorSpoon
 
Reply Wed 16 Jul, 2008 11:48 am
@Didymos Thomas,
Theaetetus,

Does the US renege on minor treaties? Yes. Do they do it just because Didymos,

I totally agree with you that the culture of china is spectacular, unfortunately the government is oppressive and ruthless. Its a shame that such a rich culture is suppressed the way it is. But even that is a relativistic statement on my part. Things may not be the way we perceive them because it is not our culture. Also the same is true for most countries that break treaties.

But I have to agree with ruthless on his statement as far as the military is concerned. The US military is very efficient in its own way. It is not perfect, but what military organization is? This rings of Vietnam-istics, but look at what the military is doing. They are put in the middle of an entire theater against them and expected to solve a crisis that couldn't be solved for thousands of years. Furthermore, the army is composed largely of citizen soldiers (reservists)! And further still, and this is a bit morbid, look at the ratio of losses the military is taking. I saw on the news that a military outpost was attacked in Afghanistan and 9 soldiers were killed. But the attackers sustained more than 100 causalities. More than ten to one losses for the enemy. Some of the most decisive wars in history never even came close to that number. The British in Afghanistan lost tens of thousands last time they attempted to hold Afghanistan in less time.
 
Didymos Thomas
 
Reply Wed 16 Jul, 2008 01:45 pm
@VideCorSpoon,
Quote:
I totally agree with you that the culture of china is spectacular, unfortunately the government is oppressive and ruthless. Its a shame that such a rich culture is suppressed the way it is. But even that is a relativistic statement on my part.
I doubt that - just look what the Chinese government has done to Tibet.

Quote:
But I have to agree with ruthless on his statement as far as the military is concerned. The US military is very efficient in its own way. It is not perfect, but what military organization is? This rings of Vietnam-istics, but look at what the military is doing. They are put in the middle of an entire theater against them and expected to solve a crisis that couldn't be solved for thousands of years. Furthermore, the army is composed largely of citizen soldiers (reservists)! And further still, and this is a bit morbid, look at the ratio of losses the military is taking. I saw on the news that a military outpost was attacked in Afghanistan and 9 soldiers were killed. But the attackers sustained more than 100 causalities. More than ten to one losses for the enemy. Some of the most decisive wars in history never even came close to that number. The British in Afghanistan lost tens of thousands last time they attempted to hold Afghanistan in less time.


Efficient at what? They did a marvelous job of taking down the previous regime, but that's about it.

The idea that the Middle East crisis is thousands of years old is bull. Sorry to say it. War has been a constant on every continent as long as man has been present. The current crisis in the Middle East is relatively modern stemming from the end of colonialism which began after the French and British split up the area after the Ottoman Empire collapsed under the Young Turk revolution.

The ratio of death is irrelevant - the US maintained an equally impressive ratio in Vietnam. Vietnamese loses regularly approached 200,000 per year, but this didn't matter because the 200,000 North Vietnamese came of military age every year.

The bottom line is that our military strategy in Iraq, and in Afghanistan, does not work. We need to adopt more effective anti-guerrilla tactics if we want to gain a real military advantage in these places - the problem is that this calls for an even more repressive stance towards the citizens of those nations.

The British lost so many more troops in Afghanistan due to the military tactics of the period. That was, what, 160 years ago? And even the British faced constant, that is constant, bloody conflict with rebels - the British, like the US, forced the official government to surrender but never subdued the population. Heck, even the government that surrendered to the British waged constant war against rebels - just as nearly every ruler of Afghanistan has done.
 
Holiday20310401
 
Reply Wed 16 Jul, 2008 02:29 pm
@Didymos Thomas,
Didymos Thomas wrote:
No reason to equate the morality of the government with the morality of Chinese society. Chinese government - brutal and oppressive. Chinese society - rich and beautiful.


But I think in terms of a war the government are the ones who have the say in what goes down, especially in a communist government. So morality relative to war is about the clashing of governments not of the people who actually work to evoke a wonderful culture.

Didymos Thomas wrote:
You probably want the LSD to ware off before you post on these forums, Ruthless.


LSD = lysergic acid diethylamide ? Laughing Hallucinogen...

I think that religion stops any possibility of winning the war. The people in the middle east are influenced by religion and the extremists view seizing power through religion. Religion fuels the apparent axiom of war in the middle east. Look at what Bush did with Israel. He advocated for Israel because there are more Jews in Manhattan than there are in Israel.

Also, is it true that the US wants to invade Iran? ( I mean of course the gov.) It seems absurd, and Stephan Dion wants to as well. What kind of reasoning would persuade that. If war on Iran happens then surely the public would not even advocate for that, and for that kind of decision shouldn't there be a referendum? There's a good chance for conscription if it keeps up.
 
Didymos Thomas
 
Reply Wed 16 Jul, 2008 03:12 pm
@Holiday20310401,
Quote:
But I think in terms of a war the government are the ones who have the say in what goes down, especially in a communist government. So morality relative to war is about the clashing of governments not of the people who actually work to evoke a wonderful culture.


That's sort of my point. We should not criticize the Chinese culture when the Chinese government does something horrendous. The Tibetan example is particularly strong - China has historically defended Tibet of the Lamas (prior to conversion, China trembled before Tibetan military prowess), and looked to those Lamas for spiritual guidance. So, culturally, China and Tibet are close brothers, yet the communist government has done permanent damage to the Tibetan culture. The modern story of Tibet is one of the saddest to be found - and is far from over as the communist government continues to systematically destroy the Tibetan people and Tibetan culture.

Quote:
I think that religion stops any possibility of winning the war. The people in the middle east are influenced by religion and the extremists view seizing power through religion. Religion fuels the apparent axiom of war in the middle east. Look at what Bush did with Israel. He advocated for Israel because there are more Jews in Manhattan than there are in Israel.


Religion has come to play a significant role - initially, this was a marginal influence and the issues were European colonialism. Now, the Middle East is fighting for cultural and religious autonomy - something the West refuses to allow.

Quote:
Also, is it true that the US wants to invade Iran? ( I mean of course the gov.) It seems absurd, and Stephan Dion wants to as well. What kind of reasoning would persuade that. If war on Iran happens then surely the public would not even advocate for that, and for that kind of decision shouldn't there be a referendum? There's a good chance for conscription if it keeps up.


Government rhetoric aside, the goal of the Afghanistan and Iraq invasions was to pressure and contain Iranian influence. Not terrorism. Pull out a map and you'll see what I mean.

If my government institutes a draft, I might have to crash your sofa for a while. Those bastards are not getting me to fight their war.

One nukes - I wouldn't be so sure that no one wants to use them. Tactical nukes were considered against the Vietnamese some many occasions. First, US military advisers suggested their use against Vietnamese forces surrounding the French at Diem Bien Phu. Once the US became involved with troops on the ground, tactical nukes were regularly considered for use against Hanoi and other major NV positions.

Maybe no one wants to use them, but when politicians and military leaders become blindly pragmatic, considering action on a day by day basis instead of looking at long term issues, nukes become a real option for them. Especially when the target doesn't have any.
 
 

 
  1. Philosophy Forum
  2. » General Discussion
  3. » Canada's Future
Copyright © 2021 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.02 seconds on 10/22/2021 at 01:51:09