Canada and Denmark soon to be at war? [Archive]

Ziggurat

26th July 2005, 11:13 AM

Originally posted by CapelDodger
Coming from a country that owes a huge debt for the sacrifices of the Canadian Navy in the Battle of the Atlantic, during the years the US was sitting it out and after, that naturally provokes the urge to hit somebody on the nose. Rumsfeld, for preference - not because he features in the piece, just as a general preference.

That's one of the sad ironies of it all. Canada used to be one of the premier naval powers of the world. They were important players in both WWI and WWII, even after the US joined. Canadian soldiers died right next to US and British soldiers storming Normandy. But they have let that power slip away. They have made a choice to become militarily irrelevant - and make no mistake, it WAS a choice. They could not play such an important role in any current or near future conflicts even if they wanted to, as demonstrated so pitifully by their inability to contribute anything to the recent tsunami relief efforts. Canada's past military traditions and accomplishments offer a lot to be proud of, but their future looks to be one of increasing irrelevance.

So while you're fantasizing about punching Rumsfeld (and don't let me keep you from it), you might want to picture Chretien getting popped one too.

Orwell

26th July 2005, 11:18 AM

So Canada is destined to be irrelevant because we don't have a oversized army relative to our population and economy? Man, you have a very grim view of the future... :rolleyes:

Or are you just saying that because it miffed you that we didn't go along with that Iraqi adventure?

Darat

26th July 2005, 11:20 AM

Originally posted by Orwell
So Canada is destined to be irrelevant because we don't have a oversized army relative to our population and economy? Man, you have a very grim view of the future... :rolleyes:

Or are you just saying that because it miffed you that we didn't go along with that Iraqi adventure?

He said " militarily irrelevant", which if you donâ€™t have a significant military is matter of fact not opinion. (I donâ€™t know if Canada has a large and capable military.)

Orwell

26th July 2005, 11:25 AM

Originally posted by Darat
He said " militarily irrelevant", which if you donâ€™t have a significant military is matter of fact not opinion. (I donâ€™t know if Canada has a large and capable military.)

Oh, you're right. Sorry! But personally, I have the impression (I could be wrong) that Zig thinks that being militarily irrelevant and being irrelevant is the same thing. Is this what you think, Zig?

Canada doesn't have any major enemies, and it is too big and too rich to be conquered. I don't see why we should spend billions in weapons when our government keeps arguing for tighter spending on education, healthcare and infrastructure, all in the name of deficit control and economic performance.

Badger

26th July 2005, 12:02 PM

I say let 'em have it, if we get Aruba in exchange.

(or any other small, Carribean island they feel like getting rid of)

BPSCG

26th July 2005, 12:03 PM

Originally posted by Orwell
...and it is too big and too rich to be conquered. Interesting claim. Care to elaborate on it?

Manny

26th July 2005, 12:08 PM

Originally posted by Darat
He said " militarily irrelevant", which if you donâ€™t have a significant military is matter of fact not opinion. (I donâ€™t know if Canada has a large and capable military.) Canada's military is tiny (62,000, including only 19,000 soldiers) but not to be messed with, particularly on land. They've shrunk their military a lot over the past several years but units that remain are highly capable. Their roles in NATO are rapid response on the one hand and peacekeeping on the other. Their regular soldier is trained to a level that would make one almost a Ranger in the US army.

They're in no shape to carry out any large missions because of their size but for any mission that needs to be done within their size they're about the best in the world.

In addition to their military the RCMP is an active participant in peacekeeping operations, primarily in the role of training domestic security forces and police forces in wartorn areas.

hodgy

26th July 2005, 12:20 PM

Don't forget that as Queen of Canada, HM Queen Elizabeth II would be Queen of Hans Island. Since she is Commander in Chief of the British Army, Royal Navy, Royal Airforce and of various other miltary forces (e.g. Australian Army), I suggest that the Danes back off a bit ;)

There is a similar situation with the island of Rockall in the North Atlantic ocean. It is just a tiny lump of rock but is claimed by the UK, Ireland, Iceland and Denmark (they're at it everywhere!). As with Hans island its the potential oil ans gas reserves that are of interest.

Ladewig

26th July 2005, 12:23 PM

Originally posted by Badger
I say let 'em have it, if we get Aruba in exchange.

(or any other small, Carribean island they feel like getting rid of)

So are you joking or are you actually confusing the Denmark and the Netherlands?

Ziggurat

26th July 2005, 12:25 PM

Originally posted by manny
Canada's military is tiny (62,000, including only 19,000 soldiers) but not to be messed with, particularly on land. They've shrunk their military a lot over the past several years but units that remain are highly capable. Their roles in NATO are rapid response on the one hand and peacekeeping on the other. Their regular soldier is trained to a level that would make one almost a Ranger in the US army.

They're in no shape to carry out any large missions because of their size but for any mission that needs to be done within their size they're about the best in the world.

I'm sure their soldiers are among the best in the world. But as a force, it is not. And one of the prime reasons it is not, which I did not make explicit, is that they cannot do anything with that military without getting someone else to help. They may specialize in rapid response forces, for example, but they do not have the capacity to transport, let alone support, those forces without someone else doing it for them. That may seem like a small matter, but it is not. That is precisely what made the Canadian military unable to provide ANY assistance in the early tsunami relief. They had the teams, the equipment, and the training. But they were completely unable to actually move them to where they could do any good. They relied upon contracted Russian air transport, and that was booked in short order by other groups, leaving the Canadian military completely impotent.

Having a military force is one thing. Being able to project that force is something else entirely. Canada used to be able to do this. They cannot do it any more. They are, therefore, fairly irrelevant unless one is planning on invading Canada. But as long as they keep the mapple syrup flowing, they probably don't have to worry about that either ;)

corplinx

26th July 2005, 12:27 PM

The burning question in all of our minds is how long until Quebec surrenders to Denmark.

Ladewig

26th July 2005, 12:28 PM

Originally posted by manny

They're in no shape to carry out any large missions because of their size but for any mission that needs to be done within their size they're about the best in the world.

I've always thought that it would be fascinating to have a military Olympics. Participating countries could send a single team that competes in marksmanship, orienteering, hand-to-hand combat, and other events.

It'll never happen, though.

Cleon

26th July 2005, 12:28 PM

Originally posted by Ziggurat

Having a military force is one thing. Being able to project that force is something else entirely. Canada used to be able to do this. They cannot do it any more. They are, therefore, fairly irrelevant unless one is planning on invading Canada. But as long as they keep the mapple syrup flowing, they probably don't have to worry about that either ;)

Imagine that. A military designed purely for defense. Huh.

Jono

26th July 2005, 12:29 PM

But that's my island!!

Hans Island, it's mine!!!

The same claim might come from all the other Hans that exists out there... copycats they are :)

CFLarsen

26th July 2005, 12:29 PM

People? Hello?

It's called "Hans Ã˜". Not "Hans Island".

By referring to it as "Island", you are already accepting some Anglo-saxon Canadian ownership. This is a falsehood that will result in a Lindisfarne-like invasion of Vikings.

Desist or get ready to be invaded.

Jono

26th July 2005, 12:33 PM

It's called "Hans Ã˜". Not "Hans Island".

Very true my nordic neighbour.
Though doesn't it mean Island nevertheless in danish? It does with the swedish equivalent "Hans Ã–".

Ziggurat

26th July 2005, 12:37 PM

Originally posted by Orwell
Oh, you're right. Sorry! But personally, I have the impression (I could be wrong) that Zig thinks that being militarily irrelevant and being irrelevant is the same thing. Is this what you think, Zig?

No, the two are not synonymous, though there is some relation. Any country that is militarily relevant is automatically relevant in the general scheme of things. The reverse is possible (being relevant to the general scheme of things but not militarily), Japan being one example.

Canada doesn't have any major enemies, and it is too big and too rich to be conquered.

Conquest isn't the only military threat nations face. Piracy, for example, used to be a major problem. It isn't currently. Wonder why? It's not because of the current Canadian navy, that's for sure. Canada isn't too big or rich to be conquered, but it is too close to the US to be conquered.

Orwell

26th July 2005, 01:04 PM

Originally posted by BPSCG
Interesting claim. Care to elaborate on it?

Nato member, main furnisher of oil to the US, one of the seven largest economies in the world, friendly relations with pretty much every single country on Earth, most of our territory is wild and weakly populated, no major internal problems, no close by enemy nations... Who the hell would want to invade Canada? Why should we have a big military? Not even the US would invade us, I think!;)

Orwell

26th July 2005, 01:13 PM

Originally posted by Ziggurat
No, the two are not synonymous, though there is some relation. Any country that is militarily relevant is automatically relevant in the general scheme of things. The reverse is possible (being relevant to the general scheme of things but not militarily), Japan being one example.
I'd rather follow the example of Japan and of, I don't know, Sweden or Switzerland, than have us be some kind of US lite.
Originally posted by Ziggurat
Conquest isn't the only military threat nations face. Piracy, for example, used to be a major problem. It isn't currently. Wonder why? It's not because of the current Canadian navy, that's for sure. Canada isn't too big or rich to be conquered, but it is too close to the US to be conquered.
Piracy? Shiver me timbers! Arrrgh, matey! Pirates aye be scary! We aye do need a big navy t' fight those scalywags, eh?!
:D

Ziggurat

26th July 2005, 01:16 PM

Originally posted by Cleon
Imagine that. A military designed purely for defense. Huh.

Yes indeed. Imagine WWII if the US had only been able to defend itself.

It's a cute idea, but the world is a little more complicated than that. And as I already mentioned, Canada may be able to defend its soil, but it cannot defend its interests. If Canadian merchant vessels were attacked by other countries far from Canada, for example, there isn't a whole lot Canada could do anymore. Is protecting your merchant vessels considered purely defensive?

Canada indeed can get away with a small army that is "designed purely for defense", but that's not a model I would want the US to adopt. And I think Canadians would probably start getting worried if we did, at least when it dawned on them the possible implications for global stability.

Orwell

26th July 2005, 01:16 PM

Originally posted by corplinx
The burning question in all of our minds is how long until Quebec surrenders to Denmark.

I know you don't know much about Quebec, and the fact that quebec people speak french probably confuses you a bit... But I think you should know that Quebec isn't France. ;)

Orwell

26th July 2005, 01:22 PM

Originally posted by Ziggurat
Yes indeed. Imagine WWII if the US had only been able to defend itself.

It's a cute idea, but the world is a little more complicated than that. And as I already mentioned, Canada may be able to defend its soil, but it cannot defend its interests. If Canadian merchant vessels were attacked by other countries far from Canada, for example, there isn't a whole lot Canada could do anymore. Is protecting your merchant vessels considered purely defensive?

Canada indeed can get away with a small army that is "designed purely for defense", but that's not a model I would want the US to adopt. And I think Canadians would probably start getting worried if we did, at least when it dawned on them the possible implications for global stability.

Yeah, man! we should worry about them pirates attacking Canadian owned rust buckets sporting Liberian flags crewed by Ukrainians, Philipinos and Indians! That's why Canada needs nuclear submarines and aircraft carriers! We have to fight them pirate threat!

Just like the US needs it's huge armed forces and gigantic defence budget to fight far off third world nations and terrorists! :D

Ziggurat

26th July 2005, 01:36 PM

Originally posted by Orwell
Piracy? Shiver me timbers! Arrrgh, matey! Pirates aye be scary! We aye do need a big navy t' fight those scalywags, eh?!
:D

Arrg! Ye be fergettin tha' piracy be primarily a tool of state conflict, not simply criminal behavior, me maytee! The English pirates who preyed on Spanish galleons, the Barbary pirates who demanded tribute, it's always been primarily a tool of state conflict. And the solution to it has always been naval power. Why has there been no significant level of piracy for the last century? It's certainly not because there haven't been wars, or even low-level conflicts. It's been because there have only been a few dominant naval powers, and (with the exception of during WWI and WWII) they had an interest in keeping the seas open and free for trade. That role used to be played by Britain, now it is primarily played by the US. But do you honestly think piracy wouldn't re-emerge if there was no dominant naval power? Do you honestly think that Iran, for example, wouldn't block shipping traffic through the Persian Gulf if it got in a conflict with Saudi Arabia? Do you really think it hasn't occured to terrorist groups that the Straights of Malacca are a chokepoint for a huge fraction of the entire world's oil shipments? No, modern piracy wouldn't look like parrot-wielding, wooden-leg-stomping fruitcakes in funny clothing. It would probably be a brutal, messy game of state-sponsored terrorist groups mostly just sinking ships. You know, kind of like they did to that French oil tanker in the Persian Gulf a year ago or so. Only a lot more often.

Canada doesn't need a navy to protect against this sort of thing, that is correct. It's got the US navy to do it for them.

hodgy

26th July 2005, 01:40 PM

Who the hell would want to invade Canada?

Good point - I've been to Medicine Hat.

seayakin

26th July 2005, 01:43 PM

The Canadians and Danes should relinquish all claims and allow the closest Inuit band to claim it as soverign territory. Either that or you let a country who has absolutely no use but might allow them to double their territory like Lichtenstein. ;)

Ryokan

26th July 2005, 01:57 PM

Originally posted by CFLarsen
Time for Lindisfarne, Canadian style.

What?! Do Danes claim responsibility for Lindisfarne?!?

Kerberos

26th July 2005, 01:57 PM

Originally posted by Ziggurat

Conquest isn't the only military threat nations face. Piracy, for example, used to be a major problem. It isn't currently. Wonder why? It's not because of the current Canadian navy, that's for sure.
So Canada should use a lot of money on building a big modern navy because piracy might be a threat if not for the fact that the US maintained a bigger and more modern navy than Canada could ever hope to build? You don't think that would be silly at all?

Originally posted by Ziggurat
Canada isn't too big or rich to be conquered, but it is too close to the US to be conquered.
Meaning that some country might conquer Canada if the US wasn't nearby? Pray tell, what country do you think could threaten Canadian territory in the absence of US protection? Even if such a potential threat did exist, which it doesn't, there really would be no need to keep a significant military because there would be a threat if the US was hit by a gigantic meteor, because the chances of that happening are really fairly remote.

Orwell

26th July 2005, 02:02 PM

Originally posted by Ziggurat
Arrg! Ye be fergettin tha' piracy be primarily a tool of state conflict, not simply criminal behavior, me maytee! The English pirates who preyed on Spanish galleons, the Barbary pirates who demanded tribute, it's always been primarily a tool of state conflict. And the solution to it has always been naval power. Why has there been no significant level of piracy for the last century? It's certainly not because there haven't been wars, or even low-level conflicts. It's been because there have only been a few dominant naval powers, and (with the exception of during WWI and WWII) they had an interest in keeping the seas open and free for trade. That role used to be played by Britain, now it is primarily played by the US. But do you honestly think piracy wouldn't re-emerge if there was no dominant naval power? Do you honestly think that Iran, for example, wouldn't block shipping traffic through the Persian Gulf if it got in a conflict with Saudi Arabia? Do you really think it hasn't occured to terrorist groups that the Straights of Malacca are a chokepoint for a huge fraction of the entire world's oil shipments? No, modern piracy wouldn't look like parrot-wielding, wooden-leg-stomping fruitcakes in funny clothing. It would probably be a brutal, messy game of state-sponsored terrorist groups mostly just sinking ships. You know, kind of like they did to that French oil tanker in the Persian Gulf a year ago or so. Only a lot more often.

Canada doesn't need a navy to protect against this sort of thing, that is correct. It's got the US navy to do it for them.

Come on, even if the US wasn't around, there would be enough states interested in keeping shipping lanes free of interference to do something about it. Besides, you don't need a huge navy to fight pirates in this day and age. No pirate (even state sponsored ones, if such a thing still exists) has anything remotely capable of facing a small fast frigate or something like that. Piracy doesn't justify a huge expensive navy. Here's a list of ships belonging to the canadian navy: http://www.navy.forces.gc.ca/mspa_fleet/fleet_home_e.asp

To me, it seems like enough to face "pirates"...

BPSCG

26th July 2005, 02:15 PM

Originally posted by Orwell
Nato member, main furnisher of oil to the US, one of the seven largest economies in the world, friendly relations with pretty much every single country on Earth, most of our territory is wild and weakly populated, no major internal problems, no close by enemy nations... Who the hell would want to invade Canada? Someone who wants your oil, maybe?
Why should we have a big military? Not even the US would invade us, I think!;) Let's talk again when crude hits $250.00 a barrel and U.S. and Chinese troops are battling it out for control of the Yukon Territory.

My point is, just being big and rich is no guarantee you won't be invaded.

Orwell

26th July 2005, 02:19 PM

Originally posted by BPSCG
Someone who wants your oil, maybe?
[B]Let's talk again when crude hits $250.00 a barrel and U.S. and Chinese troops are battling it out for control of the Yukon Territory.

My point is, just being big and rich is no guarantee you won't be invaded.

To put it simply, I think you're paranoid. You still carry all of that old cold war baggage with you. And besides, it would be way more probable that your hypothetical (very hypothetical) China vs. US war over oil would take place in the Middle East or even in, I dunno, Siberia, not in the Yukon.

Badger

26th July 2005, 03:03 PM

Originally posted by Ladewig
So are you joking or are you actually confusing the Denmark and the Netherlands?

I was joking, but yes I did confuse them too.

Sorry...... unless the Netherlands WANTS to give us Aruba that is....

Ziggurat

26th July 2005, 03:10 PM

Originally posted by Kerberos
So Canada should use a lot of money on building a big modern navy because piracy might be a threat if not for the fact that the US maintained a bigger and more modern navy than Canada could ever hope to build? You don't think that would be silly at all?

I think you misunderstand me. My point is not so much that I think Canada should take a particular coarse of action. That is for them to decide (though I'm not sure they fully understand all the consequences). My point is merely that their choice of military impotence (and yes, they are impotent, and yes, it was a choice) should not be looked at as a model for how nations dissimilar to Canada should act. That Canada can do so with few negative repercussions does not mean the US could do likewise. A little awareness of this basic reality is what I'm looking for.

Badger

26th July 2005, 03:13 PM

Originally posted by BPSCG
Someone who wants your oil, maybe?
[B]Let's talk again when crude hits $250.00 a barrel and U.S. and Chinese troops are battling it out for control of the Yukon Territory.

They'd better bring really warm coats if they do.

Remember the lessons that Napoleon and Hitler learned when they invaded Russia. Sure, people may want the oil, but the terrain and climate is something to be seriously considered. They'll kill ya if you're not prepared.

Major Billy

26th July 2005, 03:17 PM

Originally posted by HarryKeogh
so let me get this straight...Canada is a real country?

But they use loons instead of real money!

Zep

26th July 2005, 03:39 PM

Originally posted by BPSCG
Someone who wants your oil, maybe?
Let's talk again when crude hits $250.00 a barrel and U.S. and Chinese troops are battling it out for control of the Yukon Territory.

My point is, just being big and rich is no guarantee you won't be invaded. Oh, but the Canadians have boxed clever there, you see. They plan to SELL the oil at an undercut price to both battling parties BEFORE they invade. Then there will be no need to invade, no war, and Canada stays free and gets even richer. Much smarter, and mutually beneficial all round, don't you think?

:D

Zep

26th July 2005, 03:40 PM

Originally posted by Major Billy
But they use loons instead of real money! As opposed to the USA, which has loons who control the money.

mr rosewater

26th July 2005, 03:48 PM

What do you think the Danes will rename Canada?

Canmark, maybe?

WildCat

26th July 2005, 03:53 PM

Originally posted by Orwell
Nato member, main furnisher of oil to the US, one of the seven largest economies in the world, friendly relations with pretty much every single country on Earth, most of our territory is wild and weakly populated, no major internal problems, no close by enemy nations... Who the hell would want to invade Canada? Why should we have a big military? Not even the US would invade us, I think!;)
Once global warming makes much of the US uninhabitable, it's all ours baby!! Except for Quebec, we don't need that mess. And there's a huge upside for Canada in all this - they won't have to worry about losing all their professional hockey teams to a foreign nation whose fans don't leave after the 3rd period because they think there's a 4th. :p

Mid

26th July 2005, 03:58 PM

Originally posted by mr rosewater
What do you think the Danes will rename Canada?

Canmark, maybe?

No they won't bother conquering Canada they'll just do lightening raids like they did with Lindisfarne and kidnap some Canadian monks

Zep

26th July 2005, 04:12 PM

Originally posted by Ziggurat
I think you misunderstand me. My point is not so much that I think Canada should take a particular <strike>coarse</strike> course of action. That is for them to decide (though I'm not sure they fully understand all the consequences). My point is merely that their choice of military impotence (and yes, they are impotent, and yes, it was a choice) should not be looked at as a model for how nations dissimilar to Canada should act. That Canada can do so with few negative repercussions does not mean the US could do likewise. A little awareness of this basic reality is what I'm looking for. Erm, hi. I'm from Australia. We have a whole continent full of natural resources and a scant population just like Canada, and the world's most populous Muslim nation just to our north. We are also about as far from the USA as you can get on this planet, even though we are allies too. You'd think we are in real trouble, wouldn't you. And yet we don't feel the need for a giant military either, just like Canada.

We actually have a military that is even smaller than Canada's. In the past, it has participated in many notable actions, alongside our Commonwealth cousins. Our SAS are operating in Iraq now, and have been in Afghanistan too (I understand our SAS were really the ones who took the Baghdad airport in 2003, not the US marines). No, we don't plan on invading anywhere, but we can project force in our region. Have already done so recently.

The reality of the situation is that we are prepared to enter into dialogue and negotiation, or abstain from participation if necessary - in short, be realistic and pragmatic. Of course diplomacy gets heated and even descends into farce at times (you should see what is happening with ASEAN lately), but it's better than throwing exploding things at each other. Don't you agree?

Rob Lister

26th July 2005, 04:14 PM

Originally posted by Ladewig
I've always thought that it would be fascinating to have a military Olympics. Participating countries could send a single team that competes in marksmanship, orienteering, hand-to-hand combat, and other events.

It'll never happen, though.

We already do that from time to time. It's called war. When we're just playing with our allies, it's called war games.

The Fool

26th July 2005, 04:18 PM

Most of these type of disputes are for the fishing rights that you can claim within a certain distance of anything that is above sea level that you have sovereignty over.....
But in this case....I don't think anyone goes up there to fish so its probably just another example of Blatant Danish facist extremist alcohol fueled crass expansionism inflicted on the loving kind and peaceful people of Canada.

Rob Lister

26th July 2005, 04:18 PM

Originally posted by Orwell
Come on, even if the US wasn't around, there would be enough states interested in keeping shipping lanes free of interference to do something about it...

Yes, but you are now at their mercy instead of [just] ours. You've touched on the problem, now pick it up and stare at it. You are happy to allow others [your brothers south of you] to protect you while complaining all the while about how much they waste protecting you.

Kerberos

26th July 2005, 10:58 PM

Originally posted by Ziggurat
I think you misunderstand me. My point is not so much that I think Canada should take a particular coarse of action. That is for them to decide (though I'm not sure they fully understand all the consequences). My point is merely that their choice of military impotence (and yes, they are impotent, and yes, it was a choice) should not be looked at as a model for how nations dissimilar to Canada should act. That Canada can do so with few negative repercussions does not mean the US could do likewise. A little awareness of this basic reality is what I'm looking for.
I agree that great/super powers shouldn't act the same way as minor powers, but I don't see how much of a choice it is for Canada. Japan has a choice in the matter, but Canada? Even if they spent as large a percentage of GDP as you did on the military, they'd still be largely impotent. They still wouldn't be capable of serious military action without you, and you still would be capable of serious military action without them. I really don't see what serious consequences the Canadians suffer from only being able to send say 2000 men to the wars you decide to wage, rather than for example 6000-10000.

MRC_Hans

27th July 2005, 12:39 AM

Now, if you promise not to tell anybody, I'll explain what it is about. The Lindisfarne method is really outdated, unfortunately (it would have been fun). Not only are longships horribly expensive to build with present-day labor costs, but rich monastries on desolate coasts have, for some reason, become a rarity. So we have adopted a salami method for world dominance instead; we will simply take it island by island. We started with Tasmania (with the attached area of Australia). Since we are currently out of marriage-ready royalty (but working on that), we are taking it slow. Our supply of flags to plant on arctic islands is, fortunately, indefinitely replenishable. Being pragmatists (as shown by their position on military spending), the Canadians will sooner or later grow tired of sailing flags to the Hans Ã˜, and concede it to us. They will probably fail to read the small print stating that this means we also own Quebec.

Hans

CFLarsen

27th July 2005, 02:24 AM

Originally posted by MRC_Hans
Since we are currently out of marriage-ready royalty

Not so. Joachim and Alex's divorce has gone through.

Leif Roar

27th July 2005, 02:30 AM

Originally posted by Ziggurat
My point is merely that their choice of military impotence (and yes, they are impotent, and yes, it was a choice) ...

You left out an important "on their own" in the above sentence. Canada's military structure might make her "military impotent" if she actually stood alone, but then much of the reason behind the structure is that she's not standing alone.

Like many other nations, Canada has based her military power on an alliance with friendly nations, in this case NATO, and her military forces has been structured to perform a particular function within that alliance. It doesn't make much sense to consider Canada's military as a whole, separate from that of her allies.

MRC_Hans

27th July 2005, 05:05 AM

Originally posted by CFLarsen
Not so. Joachim and Alex's divorce has gone through. I know, but I was assuming they would observe a reasonable decency period. The Danish royal family has generally shown reasonably good taste. Thus, "working on it". The other contenders are, after all, a bit young for any serious planning ;).

Hans

Kerberos

27th July 2005, 05:17 AM

Originally posted by Leif Roar
You left out an important "on their own" in the above sentence. Canada's military structure might make her "military impotent" if she actually stood alone, but then much of the reason behind the structure is that she's not standing alone.

Like many other nations, Canada has based her military power on an alliance with friendly nations, in this case NATO, and her military forces has been structured to perform a particular function within that alliance. It doesn't make much sense to consider Canada's military as a whole, separate from that of her allies.
I don't think that's really true, Canada's contribution to Nato is hardly critical.

Leif Roar

27th July 2005, 05:21 AM

Originally posted by Kerberos
I don't think that's really true, Canada's contribution to Nato is hardly critical.

The point is that when considering the strengths and weaknesses of Canada's military, you can't ignore the existance of her allies, since her allies are an important, even central, factor in Canada's military policies and strategy.

27th July 2005, 05:38 AM

egslim

27th July 2005, 05:54 AM

Originally posted by Ziggurat
[B]Yes indeed. Imagine WWII if the US had only been able to defend itself.

http://www.ibiblio.org/hyperwar/AMH/AMH/AMH-19.html
But not much new equipment was forthcoming for ground units in the field until Army appropriations began to rise in 1936.
[...]Instead of nine infantry divisions, there were actually three.
The US wasn't even able to defend itself! What protected the US were two big oceans and sheer size - even without a US Army to fight it would take lots of divisions to occupy the whole. And let's not forget British control of the Atlantic.
Not so different from Canada now...

Kerberos

27th July 2005, 06:01 AM

Originally posted by Leif Roar
The point is that when considering the strengths and weaknesses of Canada's military, you can't ignore the existance of her allies, since her allies are an important, even central, factor in Canada's military policies and strategy.
Sure but if Canada's allies cannot do very much with Canada's aid that they couldn't do without it, then calling Canada nilitarilly irrelevant seems perfectly fair, and I think that's the case.

Manny

27th July 2005, 06:10 AM

Originally posted by Ed
Arrr, ye be dead wrong lubber. There are even alerts and it hardly appears to be state sponsored in any way. The wise ocean trotting private vessel should have a complement of automatic weapons. Heh. There's a variety of international compacts which make it extremely unattractive for commercial oceangoing vessels to carry weapons -- that's one of the things the new breed of pirates counts on.

More and more vessels, particularly those that do a lot of trade in high-piracy areas, are actually going with non-gun guns. High pressure water hoses, electrical fences around the deck, that sort of thing.

CFLarsen

27th July 2005, 07:13 AM

Originally posted by MRC_Hans
I know, but I was assuming they would observe a reasonable decency period. The Danish royal family has generally shown reasonably good taste. Thus, "working on it". The other contenders are, after all, a bit young for any serious planning ;).

Hans

Two words: Joachim. Discos.

BPSCG

27th July 2005, 07:17 AM

Originally posted by The Fool
...just another example of Blatant Danish facist extremist alcohol fueled crass expansionism ..."Racist", Fool, you forgot "racist."

MRC_Hans

27th July 2005, 07:33 AM

Originally posted by CFLarsen
Two words: Joachim. Discos. Ehh? Has the divorce changed anything about that? Not useful for expansionist politics, though. ....Perhaps we could send him to some Canadian discos?

Hans

MRC_Hans

27th July 2005, 07:36 AM

Originally posted by BPSCG
"Racist", Fool, you forgot "racist." Not at all. We'll gladly rape, pillage, burn, and marry royally, regardless of race creed and ... mmm, perhaps not gender (although there has been rumors... nevermind).

Hans

Orwell

27th July 2005, 08:19 AM

Originally posted by Rob Lister
Yes, but you are now at their mercy instead of [just] ours. You've touched on the problem, now pick it up and stare at it. You are happy to allow others [your brothers south of you] to protect you while complaining all the while about how much they waste protecting you.

Dude, I don't feel I need protection from "my brothers to the south". The US has this tendency to "protect", without caring if we want it or not. I didn't ask for your "protection"! Actually, I don't think there are that many Canadians who want your "protection". In case you haven't noticed, the cold war is over. It has been over for almost twenty years now! You have maintained that cold war "protection" without consulting anyone, just because that's how you're used to work. And that "protection", by the way, brings you considerable political and economic advantages. You're not "protecting" anyone out of kindness. So stop talking like if you're doing us a big favour! Thank you for facing the Nazis and the Soviets and all that, but that's over now!

Orwell

27th July 2005, 08:28 AM

Originally posted by WildCat
Once global warming makes much of the US uninhabitable, it's all ours baby!! Except for Quebec, we don't need that mess. And there's a huge upside for Canada in all this - they won't have to worry about losing all their professional hockey teams to a foreign nation whose fans don't leave after the 3rd period because they think there's a 4th. :p

Well, you tried that invasion business before, and it didn't work...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Revolutionary_War#Canada.2C_1775-76

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/War_of_1812#Invasions_of_Canada.2C_1812

Ziggurat

27th July 2005, 03:44 PM

Originally posted by Orwell
Just like the US needs it's huge armed forces and gigantic defence budget to fight far off third world nations and terrorists! :D

Sadly, the obvious truth of this statement seems to have gone completely over your head. To paraphrase Churchill, you stumbled upon the truth, but picked yourself up and went on as if nothing happened.

In terms of numbers of personnel, however, our armed forces aren't particlarly large. But those numbers alone don't make us powerful. The power of our military was, however, very much needed in going into Afghanistan. No other country in the world could have done it anywhere nearly as quickly and with as few casualties. Which brings me to another point: while we could have toppled the Taliban with a less capable military, the higher cost might have been prohibitive. We've become a casualty-averse nation, and given that realty, we really do need not simple military superiority, but overwhelming superiority in order to handle problems such as Afghanistan.

In fact, had the 9/11 hijackers attacked any country other than the US, would the Taliban have been toppled? THe only scenario in which I can imagine that is if they had attacked a US ally and we had gone it to topple them on their behalf. And we probably would have, too, because that's the kind of ally the US is.

But if you want to, you can keep pretending that dictators will play nice as long as you're nice to them. I'm sure it's a much more comforting world view, despite the inconvenient detachment from reality.

CapelDodger

27th July 2005, 04:28 PM

Originally posted by egslim
http://www.ibiblio.org/hyperwar/AMH/AMH/AMH-19.html
But not much new equipment was forthcoming for ground units in the field until Army appropriations began to rise in 1936.
[...]Instead of nine infantry divisions, there were actually three.
The US wasn't even able to defend itself! What protected the US were two big oceans and sheer size - even without a US Army to fight it would take lots of divisions to occupy the whole. And let's not forget British control of the Atlantic.
Not so different from Canada now... Going back further, the first thing the Us had to do when it joined the Great War in 1917 was build an army - the one they had was busy chasing Mexicans. Going further back, the first thing the US had to do in 1898 was build an army to fight the Spanish. The army was even stetched in the Indian Wars. The Civil War started with not much more than National Guards.

The US Navy, on the other hand, was maintained throughout as state-of-the-art, for various reasons but very good strategy. It wasn't Teddy's Rough Riders that saw off the Spanish, after all. Nor their horses. :)

The armies that were built fought with the latest technology, not decades-old crap they were still paying for. Contrast that with Mussolini's army that he built in the 1920's and was still paying for when Italy went to war in 1940. It was outdated, to be charitable. The Brits, the Yanks, the Krauts, the Russkies built their armies in the 30's with 30's technology for a 40's war. The important thing is to have the capacity to build the army quickly when you need it.

ReFLeX

27th July 2005, 04:32 PM

Originally posted by Ziggurat
So while you're fantasizing about punching Rumsfeld (and don't let me keep you from it), you might want to picture Chretien getting popped one too. No one noticed this? For those Americans who are out of date (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paul_Martin)...

CapelDodger

27th July 2005, 04:41 PM

Originally posted by Orwell
Dude, I don't feel I need protection from "my brothers to the south". The US has this tendency to "protect", without caring if we want it or not. I didn't ask for your "protection"! Actually, I don't think there are that many Canadians who want your "protection". What he said, give or take. "West for "south", and "Europeans" for "Canadians". Not that Canadians aren't Europeans at heart. Except the Chinese ones. And the Native Canadians. Well, a lot of the Western ones generally. Look, forget I brought it up, crass of me, I know.

Orwell

27th July 2005, 05:06 PM

Originally posted by Ziggurat
Sadly, the obvious truth of this statement seems to have gone completely over your head. To paraphrase Churchill, you stumbled upon the truth, but picked yourself up and went on as if nothing happened.

In terms of numbers of personnel, however, our armed forces aren't particlarly large. But those numbers alone don't make us powerful. The power of our military was, however, very much needed in going into Afghanistan. No other country in the world could have done it anywhere nearly as quickly and with as few casualties. Which brings me to another point: while we could have toppled the Taliban with a less capable military, the higher cost might have been prohibitive. We've become a casualty-averse nation, and given that realty, we really do need not simple military superiority, but overwhelming superiority in order to handle problems such as Afghanistan.

In fact, had the 9/11 hijackers attacked any country other than the US, would the Taliban have been toppled? THe only scenario in which I can imagine that is if they had attacked a US ally and we had gone it to topple them on their behalf. And we probably would have, too, because that's the kind of ally the US is.

But if you want to, you can keep pretending that dictators will play nice as long as you're nice to them. I'm sure it's a much more comforting world view, despite the inconvenient detachment from reality.
U.S. Military Spending Versus Rest of the World
Consider the following:

The above sources compare the given fiscal year budget request with the latest figures for other countries, which are sometimes two years old. Still using those statistics for other countries, however, a comparison can be made here of the US Fiscal Year 2004 spending against other equivalent data:

The US military budget was almost as much as the rest of the worldâ€™s.
The US military budget was more than 6 times larger than the Russian budget, the second largest spender.
The US military budget was more than 30 times as large as the combined spending of the seven â€œrogueâ€ states (Cuba, Iran, Iraq, Libya, North Korea, Sudan and Syria) who spent $13 billion.
It was more than the combined spending of the next fourteen nations.
The United States and its close allies accounted for some two thirds to three-quarters of all military spending, depending on who you count as close allies (typically NATO countries, Australia, Canada, Israel, Japan and South Korea)
The seven potential â€œenemies,â€ Russia, and China together spent $134.2 billion, 34% of the U.S. military budget.
http://www.globalissues.org/Geopolitics/ArmsTrade/Spending.asp#WorldMilitarySpending

Orwell

27th July 2005, 05:19 PM

Oh, and by the way, you're completely forgetting that the 9/11 hijackers wouldn't probably have attacked any country other than the US. And if I'm not mistaken, the Afghan campaign was fought with small special forces detachments helped by Northern Alliance soldiers and supported by US air power. It wasn't a massive effort. I'm pretty sure that the Afghan operation could have been successful even if the US armed forces budget had been a third of its present size.

CapelDodger

27th July 2005, 05:48 PM

Originally posted by Orwell
Oh, and by the way, you're completely forgetting that the 9/11 hijackers wouldn't probably have attacked any country other than the US. And if I'm not mistaken, the Afghan campaign was fought with small special forces detachments helped by Northern Alliance soldiers and supported by US air power. It wasn't a massive effort. I'm pretty sure that the Afghan operation could have been successful even if the US armed forces budget had been a third of its present size. Just the MONEY! You could buy North Korea for $5b folding, and a $bill commission to the Chinese who know where to spread it. Had anything like the money and effort that's gone into Iraq and Notional Missile Defence had been used in Afghanistan it would actually be a beacon to the Islamic world.

I get frustrated and kinda depressed sometimes. Then I remind myself it's just the human race, so waddya gonna do?

Ziggurat

28th July 2005, 12:15 PM

Originally posted by ReFLeX
No one noticed this? For those Americans who are out of date (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paul_Martin)...

Perhaps you thought I meant that Chretien was the current Prime Minister. I do not, and that was not my point. Rather, my point was that Chretien was the one who oversaw much of the cutbacks in Canada's military. I know that I didn't make this very clear, but it certainly wasn't a case of not knowing that Martin is the current man in charge.

Ziggurat

28th July 2005, 12:28 PM

Originally posted by Orwell
And if I'm not mistaken, the Afghan campaign was fought with small special forces detachments helped by Northern Alliance soldiers and supported by US air power. It wasn't a massive effort. I'm pretty sure that the Afghan operation could have been successful even if the US armed forces budget had been a third of its present size.

No, actually, it could not. It is true that only a small fraction of US forces were involved. But I don' think you understand military technology very well. Capability doesn't scale linearly, ESPECIALLY when it comes to projecting military power. Europe as a whole doesn't spend that much less than the US does on its military. But they've got almost NO force projection capabilities in comparison.

Did you know, for example, that Europe has no equivalent to the US JDAM bombs? Those things are an absolutely critical element of our air power, especially for a situation like Afghanistan where close air support was backing small ground forces. But they're only one piece of a very large puzzle. And if we hadn't invested in that larger puzzle (including, for example, the GPS satellite network), we wouldn't have that capability at all.

Another example of this is aircraft carriers. We've got twelve aircraft carrier groups. We didn't send them all to Afghanistan, but it's precisely because we've got a lot of them that we can afford to send them wherever they're needed, whenever they're needed (the tsunami relief efforts being another example of their utility). And they played a key part in the Afghan campaign. How many aicraft carrier groups does Europe have? How many took part in tsunami relief efforts?

As to special forces themselves, yes, they are numerically small. But you get special forces by picking the cream of the crop from the regular armed forces. If you halve the size of the regular forces, you're going to evantually have to either halve the special forces or start accepting a lower standard. So the fact that our footprint in Afghanistan was small doesn't mean we could have done it on a much smaller military budget without accepting much higher casualties. We could not.

Ziggurat

28th July 2005, 12:41 PM

Originally posted by CapelDodger
Just the MONEY! You could buy North Korea for $5b folding, and a $bill commission to the Chinese who know where to spread it.

This is laughable. Perhaps you could buy off Kim with that much, but what about those layers and layers of military and party men who like their current privileges and would be afraid of rocking a rather unstable boat? You think we could bribe pretty much the entire North Korean military command structure? I don't see how, and I don't see how they'd trust us enough even if we had enough money and wanted to. Because face it: it takes a lot of trust for all of them to take the money and think we'll just let them walk with it. They're a fairly paranoid group, I really can't imagine that happening.

Had anything like the money and effort that's gone into Iraq and Notional Missile Defence had been used in Afghanistan it would actually be a beacon to the Islamic world.

It doesn't work this way. You can't just throw money at a problem like this. The infrastructure and economic development in Afghanistan is so low that there's very few places for the money to go. If you just throw more money at the problem, it's likely just to end up in the pockets of contractors and warlords. For example, you can't just do large construction projects quickly by throwing money at them. You need roads to transport the building material, you need sources for much of that (generally, you try to make concrete locally, for example), you need laborers and housing for them, etc. The infrastructure in Iraq isn't great, but it's so much worse in Afghanistan that it's simply not POSSIBLE to engage in the same level of construction in Afghanistan that is possible in Iraq.

Steve

28th July 2005, 12:56 PM

Originally posted by MRC_Hans
Being pragmatists (as shown by their position on military spending), the Canadians will sooner or later grow tired of sailing flags to the Hans Ã˜, and concede it to us. They will probably fail to read the small print stating that this means we also own Quebec.

Hans

Brings to mind the "little known:) " Henny Youngman line - "Take (Quebec).....Please!

Orwell

28th July 2005, 01:32 PM

Originally posted by Ziggurat
No, actually, it could not. It is true that only a small fraction of US forces were involved. But I don' think you understand military technology very well. Capability doesn't scale linearly, ESPECIALLY when it comes to projecting military power. Europe as a whole doesn't spend that much less than the US does on its military. But they've got almost NO force projection capabilities in comparison.

Did you know, for example, that Europe has no equivalent to the US JDAM bombs? Those things are an absolutely critical element of our air power, especially for a situation like Afghanistan where close air support was backing small ground forces. But they're only one piece of a very large puzzle. And if we hadn't invested in that larger puzzle (including, for example, the GPS satellite network), we wouldn't have that capability at all.

Another example of this is aircraft carriers. We've got twelve aircraft carrier groups. We didn't send them all to Afghanistan, but it's precisely because we've got a lot of them that we can afford to send them wherever they're needed, whenever they're needed (the tsunami relief efforts being another example of their utility). And they played a key part in the Afghan campaign. How many aicraft carrier groups does Europe have? How many took part in tsunami relief efforts?

As to special forces themselves, yes, they are numerically small. But you get special forces by picking the cream of the crop from the regular armed forces. If you halve the size of the regular forces, you're going to evantually have to either halve the special forces or start accepting a lower standard. So the fact that our footprint in Afghanistan was small doesn't mean we could have done it on a much smaller military budget without accepting much higher casualties. We could not.
:rolleyes: Whatever Zig... It's your tax money and your army. If you want to waste it playing world cop, it's your problem. Just don't act all surprised if people around the world don't like the US government much... I won't bother arguing the inarguable with you: I don't feel like reading another long post of yours defending the indefensible. And you're probably as much of an expert in military affairs as I am... So I'm just going to leave you, once again, with this tidbit of fascinating information:
U.S. Military Spending Versus Rest of the World
Consider the following:

The above sources compare the given fiscal year budget request with the latest figures for other countries, which are sometimes two years old. Still using those statistics for other countries, however, a comparison can be made here of the US Fiscal Year 2004 spending against other equivalent data:

The US military budget was almost as much as the rest of the worldâ€™s.
The US military budget was more than 6 times larger than the Russian budget, the second largest spender.
The US military budget was more than 30 times as large as the combined spending of the seven â€œrogueâ€ states (Cuba, Iran, Iraq, Libya, North Korea, Sudan and Syria) who spent $13 billion.
It was more than the combined spending of the next fourteen nations.
The United States and its close allies accounted for some two thirds to three-quarters of all military spending, depending on who you count as close allies (typically NATO countries, Australia, Canada, Israel, Japan and South Korea)
The seven potential â€œenemies,â€ Russia, and China together spent $134.2 billion, 34% of the U.S. military budget.
http://www.globalissues.org/Geopolitics/ArmsTrade/Spending.asp#WorldMilitarySpending

Was all of this needed to invade Afghanistan?Of all the enemies to public liberty war is, perhaps, the most to be dreaded because it comprises and develops the germ of every other. War is the parent of armies; from these proceed debts and taxes...known instruments for bringing the many under the domination of the few. ... No nation could preserve its freedom in the midst of continual warfare.

â€” James Madison, Political Observations, 1795

Orwell

28th July 2005, 01:37 PM

Originally posted by dogguy
Brings to mind the "little known:) " Henny Youngman line - "Take (Quebec).....Please!

Well, if you don't want us, maybe we'll just leave on our own then, eh? ;)

Steve

28th July 2005, 02:19 PM

Originally posted by Orwell
Well, if you don't want us, maybe we'll just leave on our own then, eh? ;)

Actually Orwell, although situated on the distant shores of the "wet" coast I do consider Quebec to be an integral and important part of our country. I just found it too difficult to resist a pathetic attempt at humour (Can. spelling) when I read Hans' post. No slight intended.

Orwell

28th July 2005, 02:35 PM

Originally posted by dogguy
Actually Orwell, although situated on the distant shores of the "wet" coast I do consider Quebec to be an integral and important part of our country. I just found it too difficult to resist a pathetic attempt at humour (Can. spelling) when I read Hans' post. No slight intended.

Don't worry, I was joking too... I think. :p

CapelDodger

28th July 2005, 03:59 PM

Originally posted by Ziggurat
This is laughable. Perhaps you could buy off Kim with that much, but what about those layers and layers of military and party men who like their current privileges and would be afraid of rocking a rather unstable boat? You think we could bribe pretty much the entire North Korean military command structure?I know a top-down society when I see it, and North Korea's one. You don't need every layer of the military hierarchy, because officers are conditioned to respond to whatever comes over the teletype. All that is needed is enough of the pyramid to arrange the ... expeditious de-fusing of the rest. Most North Koreans won't even need to know that anything's changed. The current privileges enjoyed by the North Korean elite pale in the face of suitcases full of money and the deeds to a villa in the Caribbean.
I don't see how, and I don't see how they'd trust us enough even if we had enough money and wanted to. Because face it: it takes a lot of trust for all of them to take the money and think we'll just let them walk with it. They're a fairly paranoid group, I really can't imagine that happening.They're human beings. Do a deal. You know, a deal deal. All you have to do is swing that gun around ... (Kelly's Heroes, a great film).

CapelDodger

28th July 2005, 04:22 PM

Originally posted by Ziggurat
It doesn't work this way. You can't just throw money at a problem like this. The infrastructure and economic development in Afghanistan is so low that there's very few places for the money to go. If you just throw more money at the problem, it's likely just to end up in the pockets of contractors and warlords. For example, you can't just do large construction projects quickly by throwing money at them. You need roads to transport the building material, you need sources for much of that (generally, you try to make concrete locally, for example), you need laborers and housing for them, etc. The infrastructure in Iraq isn't great, but it's so much worse in Afghanistan that it's simply not POSSIBLE to engage in the same level of construction in Afghanistan that is possible in Iraq. You don't have to turn Afghanistan into Los Angeles, you only need to make obvious progress and enable the people to make more. The Afghan infrastructure isn't that bad, it's been neglected and fought-over. The blasting-through-the-mountains work has been done, the roads and railways need re-surfacing and re-laying. Afghanistan in the 60's and early 70's was in pretty good state.

A few thousand dollars grant or soft-loan to a million families could see them re-establish the farms, gardens, small businesses and associated markets that have been destroyed. The warlords could be crushed with the kind of deployment we've seen in Iraq, and if the geography is too tricky, what have all those trillions been spent on? Whatever happened to the CB's? Not sexy enough?

The great problem with Afghanistan is that it's a patchwork, created within its present borders as a buffer between the Russian and British Empires. Kabul is nothing like the Jalalabad. In fact, the real problem lies with the Pashtuns, and the solution is to give them their own country, Pashtunistan, where they can indulge in their traditional pursuits - oppressing women, raising goats and fighting wars over pretty boys. Pakistan can ditch its own Pashtuns into the same piss-pot and join the normal world.

Too radical for the wet rags who pass as world-leaders these days. sadly.

Ziggurat

28th July 2005, 05:00 PM

Originally posted by Orwell
Whatever Zig... It's your tax money and your army. If you want to waste it playing world cop, it's your problem. Just don't act all surprised if people around the world don't like the US government much...

I coud care less if people don't like the US government. The french rather hate us, and I'm OK with that. What I'm NOT OK with is dictatorships exporting violence and instability. I really don't mind it if my priorities end up looking a little different than yours, evidently.

The US military budget was more than 6 times larger than the Russian budget, the second largest spender.

US GDP: $11.75 trillion
Russian GDP: $1.41 trillion

Well, will you look at that? Our economy is 8 times larger too. Go figure our military spending is so much bigger.

Edit to add: public numbers on China are also not reliable. They've been drastically understating their real spending for a long time now.

Was all of this needed to invade Afghanistan?

With a casualty-averse public, yes. That was rather my point, which you didn't address.

Of all the enemies to public liberty war is, perhaps, the most to be dreaded because it comprises and develops the germ of every other. War is the parent of armies; from these proceed debts and taxes...known instruments for bringing the many under the domination of the few. ... No nation could preserve its freedom in the midst of continual warfare.

â€” James Madison, Political Observations, 1795
(emphasis mine)

Oh, THAT is a choice quote for you to bring to the table. The government spends more on social security than anything else, which means they have to tax for social security more than for anything else. And yet, would you ever argue that such entitlement programs are really just a way for the few to gain power over the many? No, I don't think you'd ever claim that. You don't really believe in this Madison quote at all. Did you not realize it's inconsistent with your own beliefs, or did you think I wouldn't notice?

CapelDodger

28th July 2005, 05:52 PM

Originally posted by Ziggurat
IWell, will you look at that? Our economy is 8 times larger too. Go figure our military spending is so much bigger. One should be careful about the dollar figures that are bandied about. They are often based on equivalencies; for instance, each Russian conscript might be costed as equivalent to a US volunteer in dollar terms. The cost of maintaining a Russian tank might be costed as equivalent to maintaining a US tank, in dollar terms.

A more independent measure is the percentage of GDP that is expended on the military. That says more about a society than bulk costs.

Rob Lister

28th July 2005, 06:31 PM

[deleted because I"m not sure I understood your point]

WildCat

28th July 2005, 06:33 PM

Originally posted by CapelDodger

A more independent measure is the percentage of GDP that is expended on the military. That says more about a society than bulk costs.
Isn't that what he did? :confused:

DanishDynamite

28th July 2005, 08:26 PM

This is so weird!

If I may return to the original topic for a moment, I googled "Hans Island" this afternoon at lunch break, and found an interesting Wikipedia article on the whole affair. Here (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hans_Island)is what the article currently contains. The article's timeline of events currently reads:

1984 - Tom HÃ¸yem, Danish Minister for Greenland, chartered a helicopter to the Island.
1988 - The Danish Arctic/Ocean patrol cutter HDMS Tulugaq arrived at the island, builds a cairn and placed a flagpole and Danish flag on the island.
1995 - The Danish liaison officer and crew working at Thule Air Base flew in and placed another flagpole and flag.
1997 - Late August, the Danish Arctic/Ocean patrol cutter HDMS Agpa tried to reach the island, but was forced to turn around 150 miles from the Island, due to extreme ice.
2001 - Keith Dewing and Chris Harrison, geologists with the Geological Survey of Canada who were mapping northern Ellesmere Island, flew by helicopter to the island.
2002 - August 13, the Danish inspection ship HDMS VÃ¦dderen arrived and erected a new cairn, flagpole and flag, finding the 1988 flag missing and the 1995 flag in pieces, likely due to weather.
2003 - August 1, the crew of the Danish frigate HDMS Triton landed on the island and replaced the Danish flag again.
2005 - July 13, Canadian soldiers land on the Island, placing a traditional Inuit stone marker (Inukshuk) with a plaque and a Canadian flag.
2005 - July 20, as a symbolic move, Canadian Defence Minster Bill Graham set foot on the island.[1]
2005 - July 25, a Danish government official announced that Denmark would issue a Letter of Protest to Canada.
2005 - July 26, Deputy premier of Greenland, Josef Motzfeldt, stated that the island had been occupied by Canada, stating that experts should determine which country the island belongs to.

However, at lunchtime, the article had a very humorous continuation of their timeline, something like:

2005 - July 28, Upon hearing that the Canadians had ignored the Danish protest, Prime Minister Anders Fogh Rasmussen declared war on Canada. According to anonymous sources in the Danish Ministry of Defense, the three Danish (ice-strengthened) warships XXX, YYY and ZZZ were immediately ordered to the conflict area.

2005 - July 28, The Canadians, having no ice-strengthened warships, not even an ice-strengthened Coast Guard ship, nevertheless rallied in large numbers to their beaches, where they shook their fists in a threatening manner.

I'm paraphrasing quite a bit since I didn't attempt to memorize the stuff. I was just thinking how funny this stuff was and that I would provide a link at JREF. I was, BTW, a bit taken aback at these humorous lines since Wikipedia has always seemed like a reliable source for facts.

Anyway, imagine my surprise when I got home and saw that the lines in question were missing!

I'm wondering if the Wikipedia was hacked for some hours.

Orwell

28th July 2005, 09:33 PM

CCG has a fleet of 17 icebreakers. Five are dedicated icebreakers and 12 are multi-tasked ice-strengthened vessels.

CCG = Canadian coast guard

http://www.ccg-gcc.gc.ca/ice-gla/fleet_e.htm

Here's a bunch of photos:
http://www.ccg-gcc.gc.ca/ice-gla/gallery_e.htm

I'm not just going let you people spread nasty rumours around here! :D

Orwell

28th July 2005, 10:17 PM

Originally posted by Ziggurat
I coud care less if people don't like the US government. The french rather hate us, and I'm OK with that. What I'm NOT OK with is dictatorships exporting violence and instability. I really don't mind it if my priorities end up looking a little different than yours, evidently.
Zig, my man, I can assure you that the French don't collectively hate you! There are something like 60 million French! Do you think that every single one goes "Putain de 'ricains, je les dÃ©teste?" each time he gets up in the morning? And even if they did (which they don't), that would be plain and simple bigotry, just like your assertion that the French "hate" you smells of French-bashing. And by the way, please don't give me lessons on the the "exportation of violence and instability": considering the amount of blood your government has on its hands, it kind of tasteless of you to speak of those things. How many bloody dictators has your gov. helped in the name of anti-communism and national interest? And, you know, I think you should care if people don't like the US government. See, whereas, for the most part, I believe that there is a clear difference between the American people and their government's foreign policy, to a lot of people around the world that little nuance is unimportant. That's why you ended up with a bunch of Saudi nutcases flying planes into the World Trade Centre. If you don't want to have things like that happening again, you should care about what the rest of the world thinks of the US gov. You can't go around unilaterally playing World cop without creating lots of resentment.

Originally posted by Ziggurat
US GDP: $11.75 trillion
Russian GDP: $1.41 trillion

Well, will you look at that? Our economy is 8 times larger too. Go figure our military spending is so much bigger.
And thanks to your huge military budget, the Russians have an even bigger incentive to increase their military spending, if they ever manage to jump start their economy. The Chinese are already doing it, and who can blame them, eh? How can we argue with them not to do it? We'll soon have another arms race on our hands. Another wasted opportunity for some kind of stand down that could lead to a lasting world wide peace. You must really miss the cold war!
Originally posted by Ziggurat
Edit to add: public numbers on China are also not reliable. They've been drastically understating their real spending for a long time now.
Says who? The department of Defence? Fox news? Who cares anyway! Having a defender of the US military budget complaining about China's military budget "inaccuracies" is a classic case of "pot calls kettle black".
Originally posted by Ziggurat
With a casualty-averse public, yes. That was rather my point, which you didn't address. I didn't address it because, unlike you, I know when I'm out of my element.
Originally posted by Ziggurat
Oh, THAT is a choice quote for you to bring to the table. The government spends more on social security than anything else, which means they have to tax for social security more than for anything else. And yet, would you ever argue that such entitlement programs are really just a way for the few to gain power over the many? No, I don't think you'd ever claim that. You don't really believe in this Madison quote at all. Did you not realize it's inconsistent with your own beliefs, or did you think I wouldn't notice?
You only know what some of my beliefs are, Zig, not all. And I put that quote up because I thought it would be consistent with your beliefs.

Now, lets look at the estimated 2004 US budget, shall we?

National Defence 453,684,000
International Affairs 34,236,000
General Science and Basic Research 22,291,000
Energy 957,000
Natural Resources and Environment 31,665,000
Agriculture 20,121,000
Commerce and Housing Credit 7,723,000
Transportation 68,144,000
Community and Regional Development 18,757,000
Education, Training, Employment, and Social Services 87,211,000
Health 243,501,000
Medicare 270,451,000
Income Security 339,495,000
Social Security 496,174,000
Veterans Benefits and Services 60,454,000
Administration of Justice 41,603,000
General Government 25,424,000
Net Interest 156,264,000
Undistributed Offsetting Receipts -59,321,000
Total outlays 2,318,834,000

http://www.truthandpolitics.org/budget-numbers-intro.php

The US defence budget, at 453,684,000, represents nearly 20% of the total budget. Only social security is bigger, but barely: 496,174,000. You spend more on defence than on education, basic science and natural resources and environment combined!

Orwell

28th July 2005, 10:19 PM

While Rumsfeld talks about transforming the military to confront the challenges of the twenty-first century, the $514 billion budget is chock-full of programs that have no relevance to Saddam Hussein's heirs or to Osama bin Laden. For example, the budget includes $8.8 billion for missile defence the largest single weapons request. Yet national missile defense, a significant portion of that $8.8 billion, has failed its two most recent tests, and Rumsfeld admitted at a February 17 Senate Armed Services Committee hearing that, "There's no deterrent if something is known to not work."

The budget also includes: $4.3 billion for the F/A-22 Raptor fighter jet that was designed to fight the Soviet Air Force and is slated to be discontinued in fiscal 2008; $2.6 billion for submarines that will be great at tracking and sinking Soviet naval vessels, should any be found outside movie lots; and $1 billion for another Cold War weapon, the Trident II D5 missile. Not to disappoint the new nuke crowd, the proposed budget funds continued research on a new generation of "bunker-busting" nuclear weapons.

http://www.clw.org/2005/04/an_indefensible.html

Orwell

28th July 2005, 10:23 PM

Here are the stark numbers. The original defense budget for fiscal year 2004 was $400 billion. Bush's supplemental request for Iraq and Afghanistan, which he announced last Sunday on television, is $87 billion, for a total of $487 billion. Let's be conservative and deduct the $21 billion of the supplemental that's earmarked for civil reconstruction (even though the Defense Department is running the reconstruction). That leaves $466 billion.

By comparison, in constant 2004 dollars (adjusted for inflation), the U.S. defense budget in 1985, the peak of the Cold War and Ronald Reagan's rearmament, totaled $453 billion. That was $12 billion to $33 billion less than this year's budget (depending on whether you count reconstruction). In 1968, at the peak of the Vietnam War, the budget amounted to $428 billion. That's $38 billion to $59 billion below Bush's request for this year. You have to go back more than 50 years, when 37,000* Americans were dying in the big muddy of Korea, to find a president spending more money on the militaryâ€”and even that year's budget, $497 billion in constant dollars, wasn't a lot more than what Bush is asking today.

http://slate.msn.com/id/2088277/

shemp

28th July 2005, 10:34 PM

Frickin Danes are a degenerate race. Canada will beat them to death with hockey sticks, eh?

Orwell

28th July 2005, 10:48 PM

Originally posted by shemp
Frickin Danes are a degenerate race. Canada will beat them to death with hockey sticks, eh?

In order to solve this, the Danes and the Canadians are probably going to do what the people from any civilised country would do : they are going to ask the opinion of a committee of boring technocrats, who will then write a lengthy illegible report on the subject.

Ziggurat

28th July 2005, 11:50 PM

Originally posted by Orwell
Zig, my man, the French don't collectively hate you! There are something like 60 million French! Do you think that every single one goes "Putain de 'ricains, je les dÃ©teste?" each time he gets up in the morning?

No. You think every single arab does this?

And you should care if people don't like the US government. See, to me, for the most part, there is a clear difference between the American people and their government's foreign policy. But a lot of people around the world don't care about this little nuance. That's why you ended up with a bunch of Saudi nutcases flying planes into the World Trade Centre.

Codswallop. You think they did that just because they don't like us? You really think that this presumed missing ability to distinguish between a people and their government would really have stopped them? Do you think that the pentagon attacks were OK, it was only the WTC attacks that were a no-no?

It's not about people not liking us. Plenty of people don't like us, but pose no threat. Hell, you seem like you don't like me, and I don't think you'd ever pose a threat to me. It's about people thinking that such violence is not only an appropriate, but also an effective, way to accomplish their goals. As long as they think it will get them somewhere, they will commit violence. It's never been about hopelessness, or poverty, or any of that nonsense. Pinning the blame on us (which, really, is what you're arguing) won't actually help to solve the problem.

If you don't want to have things that happening again, you should care about what the rest of the world thinks of the US gov.

That will never, EVER, matter as much as what the rest of the world thinks about their own governments. THAT is what ultimately matters. THAT is why anti-US propaganda in Saudi Arabia inspires terrorists, but it only inspires pathetic protesters in Germany.

And thanks to your huge military budget, the Russians have an even bigger incentive to increase their military spending, if they ever manage to jump start their economy. The Chinese are already doing it, and who can blame them, eh?

Why is it that the rest of the world only ever responds to what the US does? Why are other countries never credited with independent agendas and initiative of their own?

China is expanding its military power to keep Taiwan from going independent, and to try to secure its foreign oil supplies. Are you honestly trying to argue that China wouldn't be doing the same thing if we were less involved in the region? Hardly.

How can we argue with them not to do it?

How quaint a notion: arguing with a country can actually get them to act against their own self-interests. Perhaps that works with European countries, but I don't see the commies going for that.

You only know what some of my beliefs are, Zig, not all. And I put that quote up because I thought it would be consistent with your beliefs.

Well, unsurprisingly, it's not.

You spend more on defence than on education, basic science and natural resources and environment combined!

Sorry to burst your bubble, but last time I checked, most education spending was done at the state and local level, so it's rather disingenuous to compare federal education funding to military spending.

chran

29th July 2005, 04:20 AM

Originally posted by DanishDynamite
I'm wondering if the Wikipedia was hacked for some hours. Nothing of the sort - Wikipedia's articles are written by its users. Haven't you ever noticed the "Edit"-link on top of all the articles? :)

Here's the version of the article you probably noticed - it was on the page for about half an hour before it was removed.

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Hans_Island&oldid=19803649

Giz

29th July 2005, 05:41 AM

Originally posted by Orwell
http://www.globalissues.org/Geopolitics/ArmsTrade/Spending.asp#WorldMilitarySpending

U.S. Military Spending Versus Rest of the World
Consider the following:

The above sources compare the given fiscal year budget request with the latest figures for other countries, which are sometimes two years old. Still using those statistics for other countries, however, a comparison can be made here of the US Fiscal Year 2004 spending against other equivalent data:

The US military budget was almost as much as the rest of the worldâ€™s.
The US military budget was more than 6 times larger than the Russian budget, the second largest spender.
The US military budget was more than 30 times as large as the combined spending of the seven â€œrogueâ€ states (Cuba, Iran, Iraq, Libya, North Korea, Sudan and Syria) who spent $13 billion.
It was more than the combined spending of the next fourteen nations.
The United States and its close allies accounted for some two thirds to three-quarters of all military spending, depending on who you count as close allies (typically NATO countries, Australia, Canada, Israel, Japan and South Korea)
The seven potential â€œenemies,â€ Russia, and China together spent $134.2 billion, 34% of the U.S. military budget.

What's your point? Would you rather live in a world where North Korea and Syria and Iran have the same military budget as the USA?

Perhaps you think it would add spice to your life if the security of the free world was on a razors edge, all the expansionist dictatorships having military equivalence with the US? I can see why that would make the world a much better place... (not).

Let's face it, a multipolar (rival superpowers) world can lead to nuclear brinkmanship, wars both by proxy and direct, and a host of massive dangers - plus the worry that maybe the good guys will lose. Given all that, a sole hegemon (where that hegemon is democratic, respects human rights, supports a free market & free press) doesn't sound like such a bad thing. (I get frustrated by those who say that the US needs a counterwieght - how quickly they forget the Cold War).

David Carroll

29th July 2005, 05:52 AM

I think a reasonable solution to this dilemma might be for both countries to abandon their claims and turn the island over to the U.N. to be used as a penal colony for animal rights terrorists so they can demonstrate to the world the practicality of living a vegan, "cruelty-free" lifestyle.
:D

Orwell

29th July 2005, 08:45 AM

Originally posted by Ziggurat
No. You think every single arab does this?
No I don't. Do you?
Originally posted by Ziggurat
Codswallop. You think they did that just because they don't like us? You really think that this presumed missing ability to distinguish between a people and their government would really have stopped them? Do you think that the pentagon attacks were OK, it was only the WTC attacks that were a no-no? :confused: I don't approve of terrorism, period! I'm not justifying terrorist actions! Understanding why something happens is not the same as agreeing with it.
Originally posted by Ziggurat
It's not about people not liking us. Plenty of people don't like us, but pose no threat. Hell, you seem like you don't like me, and I don't think you'd ever pose a threat to me. It's about people thinking that such violence is not only an appropriate, but also an effective, way to accomplish their goals. As long as they think it will get them somewhere, they will commit violence. It's never been about hopelessness, or poverty, or any of that nonsense. Pinning the blame on us (which, really, is what you're arguing) won't actually help to solve the problem. Nonsense! There is a reason why so many people in the middle east are pissed off enough to listen to extremist Islam! These people have legitimate grievances against the west in general (and the US in particular). Terrorism isn't created in a vacuum!
Originally posted by Ziggurat
That will never, EVER, matter as much as what the rest of the world thinks about their own governments. THAT is what ultimately matters. THAT is why anti-US propaganda in Saudi Arabia inspires terrorists, but it only inspires pathetic protesters in Germany. Anti-US propaganda is much more effective and convincing in places like Saudi Arabia. Why? Because the US is a good friend of the Saudi Arabian government, because the US spends something like 4 billion dollars a year helping the Israeli gov., and because the US has invaded and bombed Iraq. If you want pro-american propaganda to be more effective in the region, maybe you should change your foreign policy.
Originally posted by Ziggurat
Why is it that the rest of the world only ever responds to what the US does? Why are other countries never credited with independent agendas and initiative of their own?That's not what I'm saying. Off course gov. from other countries have their own agenda. I'm simply saying that it is a lot harder to counteract this agenda if we do the exact same things. You can't go around saying "do as I say, not like I do".
Originally posted by Ziggurat
China is expanding its military power to keep Taiwan from going independent, and to try to secure its foreign oil supplies. Are you honestly trying to argue that China wouldn't be doing the same thing if we were less involved in the region? Hardly.I think you're wrong! The US is, for all intents and purposes, an ally of Taiwan. And you're selling weapons to the Taiwanese, effectively contributing to a local arms race. This attitude favours confrontation over diplomacy.
Originally posted by Ziggurat
How quaint a notion: arguing with a country can actually get them to act against their own self-interests. Perhaps that works with European countries, but I don't see the commies going for that.You mean the Chinese? They're not really "commies", you know? Think long term: do you really miss the cold war that much? Do you wanna another arms race? Europe survived two world wars in the last century. Maybe they know something that you don't...
Originally posted by Ziggurat
Sorry to burst your bubble, but last time I checked, most education spending was done at the state and local level, so it's rather disingenuous to compare federal education funding to military spending.
But I wasn't comparing federal education alone, Zig! I put together education, basic science and natural resources and environment. These three budgets combined amount to about a third of the defence budget.

Ziggurat

29th July 2005, 11:05 AM

Originally posted by Orwell
Nonsense! There is a reason why so many people in the middle east are pissed off enough to listen to extremist Islam! These people have legitimate grievances against the west in general (and the US in particular).

Let the excuse-making begin!

I really don't care what their past greivances are. It's the present that counts. And sorry, but they've got NO grievance that justifies violence. Their own governments, their own religious leaders, are the primary problem, NOT us. Muslims are themselves the primary victims of terrorism. And yet, why do those so quick to blame the US never ask the same question of muslim society: what grievances do muslims have against other muslims?

I think you're wrong! The US is, for all intents and purposes, an ally of Taiwan. And you're selling weapons to the Taiwanese, effectively contributing to a local arms race. This attitude favours confrontation over diplomacy.

China would invade Taiwan in a heartbeat if they though they could do it at a low enough cost. What we are doing there, in case you hadn't noticed, is trying to make that impossible. The best, most sure-fire way to guarantee war does NOT take place over Taiwan is to remove the prospect of victory from the Chinese. Because no amount of diplomacy could ever stop them if the military cost was low. This isn't favouring confrontation over diplomacy, it's favouring cold, hard reality over idealism and illusion. But perhaps you'd rather have a "Free Taiwan" bumper sticker to go along with that "Free Tibet" one?

Think long term: do you really miss the cold war that much? Do you wanna another arms race? Europe survived two world wars in the last century. Maybe they know something that you don't...

Bwahahahaha! Yeah, Europe survived two world wars. Europe also STARTED two world wars, and spawned the ideologies responsible for even more deaths than those wars. Yeah, they know something we Americans never really figured out, but actually, I'm OK with that. What they never figured out how to do was win a cold war without turning it into a world war. And I'd much rather have another cold war than another world war.

CapelDodger

29th July 2005, 02:55 PM

Originally posted by WildCat
Isn't that what he did? :confused: I was hoping someone would dig out the actual GDP %ages for the US and Russia. I'd be interested, but can't be arsed to dig them out.

CapelDodger

29th July 2005, 02:58 PM

Originally posted by Giz
What's your point? Would you rather live in a world where North Korea and Syria and Iran have the same military budget as the USA? I think the point was the "30 times". Would you still be able sleep soundly if it was only 20 times? 10 times? 30 times sounds a lot.

CapelDodger

29th July 2005, 03:11 PM

Originally posted by Ziggurat
Bwahahahaha! Yeah, Europe survived two world wars. Europe also STARTED two world wars, and spawned the ideologies responsible for even more deaths than those wars. Yeah, they know something we Americans never really figured out, but actually, I'm OK with that. What they never figured out how to do was win a cold war without turning it into a world war. And I'd much rather have another cold war than another world war. You can hardly accuse Europe of starting the Pacific War. Europe did produce Communism and Nazism, and the US Constitution, Social Democracy, and smoking between courses. The Cold War was indistinguishable from a hot one to those involved as proxies. And the winner is ... now in another war. No rest for the wicked, eh?

Orwell

29th July 2005, 08:25 PM

Originally posted by CapelDodger
I think the point was the "30 times". Would you still be able sleep soundly if it was only 20 times? 10 times? 30 times sounds a lot.

Thank you CapelDodger.

Orwell

29th July 2005, 08:56 PM

Originally posted by Ziggurat
Let the excuse-making begin!
:rolleyes: (sigh) What shall I do with you, Zig? Look, I'm not making excuses for anything! I find terrorism deplorable. But I also think that Mideast policy has been disastrous, shortsighted, one-sided. I even think that, in similar circumstances, the US, Canada, the UK, other western countries, would produce suicide bombers too.
Originally posted by Ziggurat
I really don't care what their past greivances are. It's the present that counts. And sorry, but they've got NO grievance that justifies violence. Their own governments, their own religious leaders, are the primary problem, NOT us. Muslims are themselves the primary victims of terrorism. And yet, why do those so quick to blame the US never ask the same question of muslim society: what grievances do muslims have against other muslims? Once again, I am not justifying violence. As I already explained to you, past grievances are used as propaganda and recruiting tools by extremists. You cannot simply ignore them. Plus, if you do ignore them and aggravate them (as the US is doing right now i.e. Iraqi occupation), you will be making sure that muslim extremists will always have copious amounts of cannon fodder at their disposal. Muslim extremists often target other muslims because they seek to destabilise middle eastern governments. In particular, they seek to destabilise US backed middle eastern governments. That's why they recently targeted Egyptians, for instance. Is that clear, or do you wish me to explain it to you again?
Originally posted by Ziggurat
China would invade Taiwan in a heartbeat if they though they could do it at a low enough cost. What we are doing there, in case you hadn't noticed, is trying to make that impossible. The best, most sure-fire way to guarantee war does NOT take place over Taiwan is to remove the prospect of victory from the Chinese. Because no amount of diplomacy could ever stop them if the military cost was low. This isn't favouring confrontation over diplomacy, it's favouring cold, hard reality over idealism and illusion. But perhaps you'd rather have a "Free Taiwan" bumper sticker to go along with that "Free Tibet" one? Here's some "reality" for you:
Taiwanese investment in mainland China: It is estimated that somewhere between 23,000 and 59,000 Taiwanese businessmen have invested from US$17 billion to US$56 billion. http://www.cefc.com.hk/uk/pc/articles/art_ligne.php?num_art_ligne=1711
(...) although Taiwan's economic growth has in the past relied on running a trade surplus with the US, China has in recent years been supplanting the US as Taiwan's major trading partner. Last year, for example, Taiwan's export trade to the US totaled US$50.5 billion, while exports to China -- including goods channeled through Hong Kong and Macau -- totaled US$61.7 billion. More importantly, Taiwan's trade surplus with the US amounted to US$5.7 billion, while the trade surplus with China reached a startling US$28.3 billion. If we subtract that figure from the total export trade figure, then Taiwan has a trade deficit of US$22.1 billion. Equally startling is that exports to China make up 25.9 percent of Taiwan's total exports, and 14.2 percent of GDP, evidence that Taiwan is living off Chinese money. (...) But focusing just on China provides an incomplete picture. When looking at trade between China and Taiwan, we must also look at China-US trade. Twenty-four percent of China's exports are destined for the US, with a net value of US$70 billion.
http://www.taipeitimes.com/News/editorials/archives/2005/07/16/2003263775
U.S.A. Imports - partners: Canada 17.1%, China 13.7%, Mexico 10.4%, Japan 8.8%, Germany 5.2% (2004)
http://www.odci.gov/cia/publications/factbook/geos/us.html#Econ
Originally posted by Ziggurat
[B]Bwahahahaha! Yeah, Europe survived two world wars. Europe also STARTED two world wars, and spawned the ideologies responsible for even more deaths than those wars. Yeah, they know something we Americans never really figured out, but actually, I'm OK with that. What they never figured out how to do was win a cold war without turning it into a world war. And I'd much rather have another cold war than another world war. You didn't get my point. Yes, Europe produced all those monstrous things. And they still remember it. You should consider that the US is, philosophically and politically, Europe's heir. I hope you can learn from Europe's mistakes. So far, you seem to be hellbent in almost exactly repeating all those old European mistakes. By the way, as CapelDodger already remarked, millions of people died in events directly related to that "cold war". The cold war got pretty warm in Korea, Greece, Turkey, Vietnam, Angola, Mozambique, Indonesia, Ethiopia, much of latin america... Also, a lot of the present troubles in the middle east are directly connected to the Cold War too.