Canada's Future

[Didymos Thomas]

But to say that the whole planet has a history of totalitarianism is indeed relative. What about the pigmies of Papua New Guinea? (I just made that last bit up… are there pigmies in Papua New Guinea?)

I get what you're saying - they are examples of cultures without totalitarian rule. Many Native American tribes, for example. But for the most part, when cities begin to emerge, totalitarianism in some form comes to dominate.

As to the body count statement, my position was this (from post #21); “The ratio of deaths is relevant. The size and nature of opponents change constantly. But the one constant among some others is that one side experiences more losses than the other. That’s warfare.” More precisely, the body count matters because the essential nature of warfare by attrition is a fundamental truth of warfare regardless of the opponent’s idiosyncrasies.

And body count does matter. The problem is that when we are talking about the conflicts in Afghanistan and Iraq, the ration that the US has managed does not give the US any edge. Again, I go to the Vietnam example. The US lost far fewer soldiers than the NV who regularly lost near 200,000 men each year. This didn't matter because the NV could replace those 200,000 men each year with no problem. If the ratio is to make a difference the US has to kill more men than can be replaced. At the moment, we are far from accomplishing this goal.

I also know a few people in the military, officers and enlisted. But I would be an existential exoticist to suppose that because I know people who are in the military, I know the temperature of the military in general. Their views are relative to themselves. The military has mixed views about the war, no doubt about that. But your two categories do not encapsulate the average military personnel, only a particular outlook on it. There are others who have a different outlook on their job. Everyone should have their opinions (left or right), but also the duty to fulfill their obligations to the state.

Obligation to the state doesn't change their perspective on the War.

My argument has been this: the opinion of military personnel may not be relevant when considering the success or failure of the war.

Now that is a good point as to how a soldier in one area can know as much as one in another area. I’m talking about the general feeling of the overall war and the impact on the front lines. Does a soldier in Basra know what’s going on in another part of the conflict? NO. And they are not expected to. But they are connected to the conflict in a way that we are not.

Sure - they are connected to the conflict. But our connection isn't running from flying bullets and bombs, our connection is being at home with the ability to check the facts about the war.

As to military propaganda, would you want to field a demoralized army?

No - I don't want an army in the field in the first place. You said that the military was free from left and right wing propaganda - which is not true as they are filled with military propaganda, which is decidedly right wing.

Agreed, Wesley Clarke is indeed a war critic. But that is as a civilian. Wesley Clarke the civilian is different from Wesley Clarke the military General. The retirement of his stars entitle him to a personal opinion. But as a officer under obligation to the state, he was a fantastic general.

He was a fantastic general - and still a war critic. Despite having retired, he is still a pretty sharp military adviser. He isn't exactly a good example of military minds in favor of the war.

As to guerilla tactics, you had assumed that (from post #21) and inferred in post #22, that it was your point exactly. The points are different. I did not see a coincidence in your statements.

Shouldn't be coincidence in my words - they come from me and are all related to warfare. That's not coincidence.

My point about guerrilla tactics - current US strategy is poorly adapted to fighting guerrilla forces and implementing effective guerrilla tactics is politically impossible for the US. We are not, and will not, implemented a strategy that could win these conflicts thus we will lose these conflicts.

Actually, I don't understand how the crusades differ much from the middle east war. If you are saying that since the Ottoman downfall the islamics are trying to regain influence and basically get rid of the western culture/ and religion then its islam vs. western and therefore Christianity (but I don't think we have any intentions of establishing Christianity there, right?). And the crusades were about Jerusalem; islam vs. christianity.

They have similarities - the region, the religion of the people. That's about it, though. To say they are the same conflict is to say that all wars are the same conflict.

Why doesn't the USA try to advocate for the islamic religion. It would provide sway to keep the public at bay, of Kiddle East. And then no bystanders for the extremists

That's a good question. In the second state of the union address, President Bush talked about spreading freedom, economic opportunity, education, all of that. Many in the Middle East believed him and were excited. However, the Bush policy on the ground has been 'kill'. This upset many middle easterners.

Ruthless -

The unfortunate aspect of your response is the continued denial of personal assessment, and the subsequent uncomfortable realizations.

For a while we had an agreement - you wouldn't talk to me, I wouldn't talk to you. I liked that agreement. But, hey, if you want to embarrass yourself with incoherent sentences that's your business. I hate to tell you, buddy, but my insistence on not taking you seriously is the result of personal assessment.

To the rest of you - I can handle Ruthless on my own. No need to get involved.

[Holiday20310401]

Originally Posted by Didymos Thomas

They have similarities - the region, the religion of the people. That's about it, though. To say they are the same conflict is to say that all wars are the same conflict.

I didn't know that Bush had any kind of conflict with the Middle East after weapons of mass destruction were not found. I think its inevitable that all nations will have nuclear warfare at some point. I just think that the benefits for the Bush Administration were to overwhelming not to accept for them.

According the to editor of visibone, " it costs 21 million on average to kill a person in Iraq". I'm assuming thats a ratio of war costs in general to the casualties taken from the Insurgent side.

I've posted that before but still is a great stat when you consider how much it would cost to put wind power or solar on a house. And a house usually has more than 1 person in it. But its too late for that cause America is already in debt.
Why is it that the republicans always leave the nation in debt and the democrats leave a surplus. (Generally)
And then the conservatives leave debt and liberals leave surplus.
Any idea as to how America is supposed to 'undebt' themelves?

[socrato]

There will inevitably be some huge war in the future where people will be fighting over resources. Whether Canada will be the main target in such a war, is questionable. Although for example, oil is a huge resource that is used for so many things. If we can find other things to compensate for the use of oil in our everyday lives than eventually there will not be such a great demand for it in the future.Instead of using gas powered cars we could all switch to electric cars or even solar powered cars for that matter.

[Holiday20310401]

Well Canada I think will be the center of it all, but defenseless at the same time if the military doesn't sharpen up. Canada is a great exporter of oil, water (I'm sure), natural gas (which the USA depend on I bet), and produce. Canada has a lot of farming space, and yet another issue is how they seem to build houses on the good soil. Niagara Falls is all residential now when it should be farming, (richest soil in canada).

[socrato]

I don't think it will matter how big Canada's army gets it will never be as big as the US or China's

[Holiday20310401]

Just pulled a few stats to give me a better idea of Canada's situation.

Canada GDP (official exchange rate) = 1.432 trillion per year and of that 2.1% comes from agriculture, 28.7% from industry, and 69.1% from services.

I know that most of the industry occurs in the southern parts of Ontario and Quebec, also it seems that more profit can be gained in relation to land area by industry rather than agriculture, so that explains the residential boom in southern ON where the irony is displayed being that the soil here is very fertile.

And the military expenditure is 1.1% of GDP. That means that only
15,752,000,000 dollars are spent on military production.

USA GDP (official exchange rate) = 13.84 trillion per year and of that 0.9% comes from agriculture, 20.5% from industry, and 78.5% from services.

Military expenditure was 4.06% of GDP as of 2005. That's 561,904,000,000 dollars to military production.

If only the world worked in a way that the military expenditure was 0% of GDP. But since it can't, Canada has a serious problem in that they are not really preparing like the USA is for what is to come, as if every war that North America fights is going to be on other soil.

Also, America is in debt by trillion's of dollars 9.5 trillion as of April 2008, according to wikipedia. That's 68.64% of an 1 year GDP. Has such a debt been reversed quickly by a republican gov. before?

[VideCorSpoon]

To address Canada’s military deficiencies...


...but this may only exacerbate the problem? I vaguely remember seeing a movie somewhere which would leave me to believe...um...that...uh... this probably wont work out in the long run.

To address Canada's money woes…



...but unfortunately Canada only has the resources for #23 black, not #23.547890 dark grey.

And a caricature of the US based on those statistics…


Don't worry, he'll get back on his feet.

[Holiday20310401]

Might I add that Canada's military will not be robotic, with red glaring eyes, at least not for a long time.

And Canada has many kinds of resources.

And yeah the USA will undebt themselves, but won't that take a long time, like a few terms. Apparently, Harper has increased the number of troops in each province, I don't remember the stats exactly but it seems rather useless to put the troops in Canada, just waiting for something when we have police.

And I don't know if you've seen the RCMP horse guys. lol. It is so degrading b/c the RCMP is supposed to be our intelligence and all they have to show for it is a rodeo sort of thing. (A dance involving horseback riding).

[Victor Eremita]

Remember guys, the RCMP is not the primary intelligence bureau in Canada. Canadian Intelligence and Espionage is conducted by the Canadian Security Intelligence Service. And they don't ride horses LOL

[Holiday20310401]

Yes but they're lame for an intelligence agency, give me a reason to even conduct espionage, unless a substitute for war.