Ann Coulter with her pants down!

[BC visitor]

Canada's military serves Canada well.

I think Canada's military serves Canada will as an instrument of Canadian policy and a projection of Canada to the world. The Canadian Army has served the world well on many peacekeeping missions which is very much in line with how many Canadians view their role in the world.

I think to say Canada can't defend itself is really irrelevant because Canada does not have anyone to defend themselves against. I don't think a large, well equipped, hostile force will materialize on the Canadian border anytime soon.

But I have to say I think Canada's military is in somewhat of an identity crisis. The Canadian military takes money way from the rest of the federal budget. How do you justify an expensive military when you have no real enemies and have social issues to address?

But what about NATO? Canada is a NATO member and NATO has some specific requirements about force capability.

Also Canadians are a prideful people and if a nation was a person, it's military would be it's penis, and as much as you hear skill matters more than size, no one wants to be called less than average.

I think Canada as a nation needs to decide what it's military needs to be.

A force to be reckoned with, with the big price tag to match?

or

An instrument of Canadian policy that refects the views of the people of Canada? Maybe this force is not the largest or has the best kit, but it can serve as the world's peacekeepers and use the cost savings to help the people of Canada?

 

[dirtydan]

I think Ann was trying to be nice to an arrogant interviewer.

Everyone (even Ann) knows that the Canadian Armed forces are not capable of defending Vancouver Island. Would anyone in their right mind think the Canadian armed forces could actually make a contribution to a serious military maneuver?

Canada has a major and genuine role to play in international affairs, but military engagements is not one of them. These are better left to USA, Britain and Australia.

Really man, Coulter was just being her stupid self. It took her a moment before she realized the she was wrong and instead nicely admitted a faux pas, she tried to ram through her mistake.

And the reporter WASN'T being arrogant. He was being honest, which is what a reporter should always be doing. Bob McKewan's (sp?) only mistake in that clip was he should have mentioned that many Canadians did volunteer with US forces to fight in Vietnam. How many did so, I really don't know but something tells that could around 10,000. She also may have confused herself on military acronymns. Canada is a part of NATO and the countries that fought with the US in Vietnam were members of SEATO.

Coulter has created for herself a fine reputation for making mistakes and when called on them she blurts out read the footnotes when it comes to her books. Or as we saw in the clip she try to sluff off a mistake by promising to get back to you. These right-wing writers like Coulter crave attention, but when that attention ends up asking serious questions then they feel the heat.

BTW dude, Australia's military is roughly the same size of Canada's. Spain which still is or was part of the Coalition of the Willing has much bigger military than either country.

 

[dirtydan]

Every empire has been crushed by its own weight. I do not think any were conquered while they were at their peak.

I do believe the US could be in that situation now, being crushed by our own weight. We subsidize poorly run companies (the airlines is just one good example). We provide welfare to lazy bastards that wont get a job. Our politicians spend money like a drunk sailor, bragging how much pork they bring to their state from federal coffers.

Hell we even build huge arenas with my money, so Canadian hockey players can flee their country and earn millions of dollars playing a sport that is better played by kids.

Soon it will be too late to turn this around.

Sorry man but your a little behind the times. Air Canada was privatized under Lyin' Brian Mulroney. Since then it has managed to as a private company to build up a debt of something around TWELVE BILLION DOLLARS and is seeking bankruptcy protection.

One company that often has ought and got federal subsidies is Bombardier and yet it is one of the world's leaders in snowmobile, aircraft, and passenger train cars. And if you want to talk about government bailouts then think Chrysler and the US federal government in the late 70's and early 80's.

As for people on welfare, the laziness is not thinking what it is like to be on welfare. I haven't but I have many years ago collected pogey. I hated picking up my pogey cheques even though I paid into the UIC. I felt like crap. Eventually I found work. People on welfare very likely feel the same way and feel dispair and downtrodden. It's very tough to overcome that more so when people say silly things about them.

The government spending money like drunken sailors? Sure that happens, it's the nature of the beast, just as corporations spend loads of money on dead end projects. Can we say Edsel?

Try watching some US news programs. You will see and hear people talk about the US forces being poorly equipped and underfunded. Yet the US spends more on their military then the next 10 countries combined.

 

[rick hunter]

Coulter has created for herself a fine reputation for making mistakes and when called on them she blurts out read the footnotes when it comes to her books. Or as we saw in the clip she try to sluff off a mistake by promising to get back to you. These right-wing writers like Coulter crave attention, but when that attention ends up asking serious questions then they feel the heat.

I saw part of a interview that Neil McDonald did with here where he questions the facts from her book and she has no good answers. She always resorts to the "I'll have to check back on you about that"

As for the States saying they helped in WWII. You guys only got off your ass after you were attacked by Japan. When Churchill asked FDR for the States to join in the fight against the Nazi, FDR was more worried about his presidency and appealing to the isolationists in Congress who thought this was yet again another "European war" that the States didn't want anything to do with! Lend Lease anyone?

 

[dirtydan]

The Red Ensign was the flag Canadian soldiers fought under during wwii. Without a doubt Cnada contributed more to the war effort on a per capita basis thanmost other allies.

On the second part, do you beleive the Cnadian Armed Forces is capable of defending even part of Canada?

This is not a slight against the fine men and women that serve, it is a statemnt about how little interst Canada has in defending itself

Canada for it's size, terms of population and industry did a unbelievable job in supporting the allied effort.

The navy expanded from a dozen destroyers to numerically the third largest fleet, mostly frigates and corvettes with almost no capital ships. The RCN protected over 40% of the Atlantic convoys during the war.

The air force ballooned from a handful of squadrons with hardly any combat aircraft and specializing in making aerial maps of Canada to a force that had several dozen fighter and bomber squadrons in Europe and many more squadrons of all sorts all over the world.

The army went from barely a division in size to having more than 5 divisions in combat in Europe of which by the fall of 1944 were part of the 1st Canadian Army. And there more forces in reserve in Britain. Protecting the left wing of the British 21st Army Group, the Canadian 1st Army liberated many channel ports and much of the Netherlands. And let's not forget the sacrifice Canada made to defence of Hong Kong.

Is Canada capable of defending itself? Well defending from what? Invasion? very, very few countries have the ability to conduct an amphibious invasion of Canada. Care to name some of them you think are a legitimate threat?

The United States with its USAF, USAF Reserve, and Air National Guards couldn't stop 9/11.

In the end I would prefer the lathargic view of the Canadian Forces than the seething militarism that has unforntunately become rampant in the US.

 

[dirtydan]

Was it my imagination or did Emperor Hirohito surrender to Douglas MacArthur unconditionally on a US aircraft carrier?

Is it my imagination that Saddam was thrashed rounds I & II? Granted there was a coalition in both instances but the burden and the effort was largely American afterall why would it have been commanded by a US General (Norman Shwarzkoph) if it wasn't??

The US does do a great deal of good when called upon, we dont have to look further than the boxing day tsunami to see what they did and will continue to do. Even closer than that is Jan 30th when as a result of their "invasion for purely economic reasons" of Iraq the first democratic election in over 50 yrs was held in that country (unless of course you consider Saddam's 100% endorsement by the people a democratic election)

George Bush is a once supreme court appointed and once democratically elected president We dont need to look further than our own borders to see how dictator like Jean Chretien was!

Japanese Emporer Hirohito was not present at the surrender ceremonies, which were conducted on the USS Missouri, an Iowa class battleship.

As for Saddam Hussein and Iraq. Can you tell me where the Iraqi weapons of mass destruction are? Can you tell me just how Saddam Hussein was connected to the 9/11 terrorist attacks. These WERE the central reasons to invade Iraq.

 

[dirtydan]

I saw part of a interview that Neil McDonald did with here where he questions the facts from her book and she has no good answers. She always resorts to the "I'll have to check back on you about that"

As for the States saying they helped in WWII. You guys only got off your ass after you were attacked by Japan. When Churchill asked FDR for the States to join in the fight against the Nazi, FDR was more worried about his presidency and appealing to the isolationists in Congress who thought this was yet again another "European war" that the States didn't want anything to do with! Lend Lease anyone?

To come to rescue of good old FDR, he knew the US had to get into the war. His problem was how to convince enough of the population to think that way. And he had a pretty tough job as traditionally the US took the attitude of staying out of foreign wars. Of course hindsight is always 20/20, but if FDR had lost the presidency the world could have been much different and the worse for it. Even after the attack on Pearl Harbor he had to contend with the attitude of the US should only fight Japan and stay out of Europe.

I like Franklin Delano Roosevelt. To me he is the best president the US has ever had. And the whole works after him? Not one of them comes anywhere close to filling his shoes.

Or should that be wheelchair?

 

[dirtydan]

I'm just on a tear tonight! Lots of energy!

 

[Sunset]

Sometimes it's wise not to talk.

 

[dirtydan]

Or should that be Lucy Mercer Rutherford ?

Cat

And she was who's mistress, Franklin's OR Eleanor's?

 

[luckydog71]

Canadian policy is not American policy and most canadians that support a strenghtened canadian armed forces don't support a lot of US foreign policy.

So if I understand you, you think Canadians should be able to influence US foreign policy, but Americans should have no say in Canadian foreign policy.

Rather a hypocritical position to take.

The only justification is Canada has no impact on world events and therefore everyone else should not care what you do. Is that your position?

 

[dirtydan]

I think most Canadians want this second option... but we are in the back asswards position of politicians deciding what tools the military needs, and generals deciding what our policies are ( we have a strong segment of upper brass that want to work for the pentagon )

Most Canadians feel our military is underfunded and underappreciated in the halls of power. Not because we expect any sort of major threat to our borders and soverignty ( other than from the US that keeps making ominous noises over fishing grounds, and "free navigation" of arctic waters ) nor because Americans keep telling us we need to have a big military, and to send it to support the American military, and fight where America wants us to.

No we feel our military is underfunded because it can't serve as an instrument of canadian policy anymore. As an example, we had a weeks delay sending our DART team to Sri Lanka because we have no transport aircraft, and have to rent or beg rides from others. But those south of the border that want us to have a stronger military presence on the world stage should realize, Canadian policy is not American policy and most canadians that support a strenghtened canadian armed forces don't support a lot of US foreign policy.

Defence policy stems from a country's foreign policy. When Canada figures out its foreign policy then it can go to work on its defence policy. The basics stay the same, defending ourselves, being part of alliances like NATO and NORAD, participating in peacekeeping operations and being of assistance to civil power (ie, the ice storm in Quebec and the flood in Manitoba).

The tricky part is figuring out which is the top priority. You look at your foreign policy and then acquire the military equipment that you need and that is defence policy.

IMHO, the most pressing need are navy ships to transport troops and equipment overseas. Right now there are just two 30 year old supply ships that largely support the destroyers and frigates at sea. A few of these new ships need to be supply ships to replace the old ones and a few of these ships need to big ships to move the equipment all over the world.

Yah one can say Canada should buy transport aircraft, but really that's a very expensive way to move the bulk of your forces. Some of the forces yes of course, but the bulk of the forces especially the equipment needs to be move by sea.

The primary task of the Canadian forces should be participating overseas in multi-national operations. Next I think should be the defence of Canada, and then NATO and NORAD. Last is the aid to civil power. Of course these can't be cast in stone, because one never knows what is going to crop up.

As for DART, it had no damn business going to Sri Lanka. That was strictly a PR move by the feds. It was very expensive to move DART and that money could have been used to fund more clean water projects done by NGO's.

 

[Bueller]

Ladies, gentlemen, the ring: my hat.

I'd like to start by saying, Maury, as a fellow Canadian and Canadian militaria buff, I'm frankly disgusted by your post...

As for my take on the association with current events, criticizing Canada’s defense spending is an old red herring that is farcical at best. When Canada has been called in the past to pony up personnel and money to defend a “just cause”, it has and has been way ahead of the US in response time. It took almost two years to get the Americans involved in the Second World War, and then only after they were spanked in the Pacific by the Japanese.

It's defence. DEFENCE. Unless you're one of those C-hating, no u's in or words, -er instead of --re insisting Amerisans who wear their solors on their sleeves, want a white pisket fense... prodsts of the Amerisan eRvoltion.


No dobt abot it.




eh.

 

[HankQuinlan]

Ladies, gentlemen, the ring: my hat.

I'd like to start by saying, Maury, as a fellow Canadian and Canadian militaria buff, I'm frankly disgusted by your post...

It's defence. DEFENCE. Unless you're one of those C-hating, no u's in or words, -er instead of --re insisting Amerisans who wear their solors on their sleeves, want a white pisket fense... prodsts of the Amerisan eRvoltion.

No dobt abot it.

eh.

The moral is..um...Canadians can't spell? Ohh...no small "c" or "u" on the keyboard!

 

[Maury Beniowski]

Naw, DE-FENCE is de-ting which is between de-property you're on and your neighbour's!

I know, I know... I wrote it on Word, and I have Auto-Correct on...

 

[BC visitor]

We don't have those supply ships anymore... mothballed

And the multinational approach has left us with some of the problems we have... an unbalanced military that can't undertake operations unless someone else agrees to help.

And these days, you never know who will agree or be ready and able to join in.

Aircraft are expensive looking at in some ways, but they are also fast. Ships take weeks to months to get where they are going and then can only get to a coast... can't ship things to Afghanistan.

A couple of modified container vessels will ship equipment just fine.

Supporting ships deployed at sea? Sure... but really, how many ships do we need to deploy around the world? We don't have a bluewater navy for power projection... we have frigates and mine sweepers... escort and patrol work. For the cost of deploying those arond the world we could have 2 times as many at home monitoring our own waters.

NATO? Lets be honest, half the warsaw pact is now in NATO. The Soviet union is gone, and NATO has little interest in operating outside Europe to intervene in Rawanda's or Sudans. Time to re-evaluate those commitments.

At the same time, a force emphasising mobility and firepower, rapid deployment and self sufficiency ... even if small, can intervene alone if need be, or more often form the nucleus of an ad-hoc coalition of nations willing to intervene for humanitarian or peacekeeping missions, or military missions ...willing but unable to go it alone. Canada could then returen to it's role as "middle power" and nation that leveraged it's forces into larger commitments from others.

We also have to realize that other than patrolling our borders ( in which NORAD does play a role and is a partnership we should keep ) Canada is pretty much unthreatened and needs little military... the greatest demands upon our military will be expensive overseas deployments on short notice. The demands are sufficiently different as to almost justify completely different forces and commands.

And yes DART is expensive, but it is an order of magnitude above and beyond what an NGO can manage in the short term... even in Sri Lanka, ( where I didn';t think they were really needed, Indonesia was what really needs their skills ) they have managed to provide shelter and clean water to people that are supposed to be taken care of by the red cross, but who were still waiting for the stuff to actually get there.

Fact is, even if the NGO's are working at top efficiency, and had access to all the resources in one place the DART team has, the Tsunami disaster was so big that they STILL would have needed the help

Thank you for posting this, because I did not want to be the ugly American who tells you Canadians what to do, but I think this is the heart of the problem with the Canadian military.

I found these sites last night in researching my post. Some interesting reads along similar lines.

http://www.ciss.ca/Comment_ArmyMGS.htm

http://www.sfu.ca/casr/id-gomm-moran1-1.htm

http://www.sfu.ca/casr/index.htm

 

[kanak]

war of 1812

Herb and Maury,

If you want to read about the war of 1812, I recommend Pierre Burton's "The Invasion of Canada" and "Flames Across the Border". I was educated in the US and got the usual history background (do they even teach it anymore?) which had the Americans taking on the British in the Second War of Independance. We were merely defending ourselves against the Brits etc. when we defended our northern border against British North America. There was no "Canada" as a distinct country, only Brits (and Tory loyalists) hiding across the border and waiting for there chance to get even for their humiliating defeat by the upstart heroic Americans.

Burton provides an eye opening counterpoint to the American centric history taught to the south. I never really appreciated that if it were not for American expansionist policy in taking the west (now considered the "midwest") from the Indians, and the Brits cynical and duplicitous use of the Indians in the War, there might not have been a Canada as the inhabitants (and Habitants) were drifting towards their neighbor to the south. Instead, US agression became a defining event in Canadian history. Burton seems to imply that ironically, if the US had not invaded Canada, you might all be Americans today.

 

[Herb_The_Perb]

...US agression became a defining event in Canadian history. Burton [Berton?] seems to imply that ironically, if the US had not invaded Canada, you might all be Americans today.

OK, but we had no choice but to invade Canada, because it had a birchbark canoes of mass destruction program, and was responsible for the events of 9/11/1811.

 

[dittman]

sthats about right ld

 

[greenvalley]

Coulture is at it again

http://mediamatters.org/static/video/cc-200412010011.wmv

For those that believe the US is all powerfull. Take a look at this:

Got to go pick up some of those nice Russin Missles.

The Sunburn can deliver a 200-kiloton nuclear payload, or: a 750-pound conventional warhead, within a range of 100 miles, more than twice the range of the Exocet. The Sunburn combines a Mach 2.1 speed (two times the speed of sound) with a flight pattern that hugs the deck and includes “violent end maneuvers” to elude enemy defenses. The missile was specifically designed to defeat the US Aegis radar defense system. Should a US Navy Phalanx point defense somehow manage to detect an incoming Sunburn missile, the system has only seconds to calculate a fire solution –– not enough time to take out the intruding missile. The US Phalanx defense employs a six-barreled gun that fires 3,000 depleted-uranium rounds a minute, but the gun must have precise coordinates to destroy an intruder “just in time.”

The Sunburn’s combined supersonic speed and payload size produce tremendous kinetic energy on impact, with devastating consequences for ship and crew. A single one of these missiles can sink a large warship, yet costs considerably less than a fighter jet. Although the Navy has been phasing out the older Phalanx defense system, its replacement, known as the Rolling Action Missile (RAM) has never been tested against the weapon it seems destined to one day face in combat.

Here is the article I got it from: http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article7147.htm

The US can bomb us, but then again we can shut off their power. And you know what happens down there when the lights go out. A little thing like the LA riots could be in their future. And if they can't hold a barren small country like Iraq who would say they would be more successful here. Its absurd to think we somehow need the protection of the US. After all the only country that has invaded us is the US. Fact is no one really needs the US's "help" except maybe Israel.