Canadians Struggle With Army's New Role

Canada’s Navy went from a five trawler navy in 1939 to the third largest navy in the world by September 2 of 1945 and was already starting to decommission ships by then. Expansion from a couple of dozen in its ranks to Ninety six thousands Officers and junior ranks by war’s end. The rate of expansion for Canada was fifty to one compared to eight to one for the Royal Navy, fourteen to one for the Royal Australian Navy, and twenty to one for the U.S. Navy. Canada's other military services expanded to an almost comparable as well. Canada, a nation of only eleven million at the time.

So if we are to believe that Canada is now at war and is a full participant in this war then why are we as a nation not eagerly and hell bent to build our military to a standard that,

-First protects our borders so no one can enter or leave without our knowledge including protecting Canada and Canadians from threats from foreign nations and people;

-Secondly to a level that allows Canada to fully support our troops to the point the we as a nation need no our foreign nations or people help to do so;

-Thirdly to a point that we as a nation need no other nation’s approval to enter or participate as a leading member determining our own path not some foreign nations or peoples agenda.

Why are we not looking out for Canada and Canadians first and foremost!

Canada #1


---
Perception is two thirds of what we perceive reality to be.

Difficult decisions are a privilege of rank.

Canada is not number one. We are simply one of about two hundred. Thinking ourselves to be at the head of the pack is nationalist bullshit and we've all seen where that can lead. We must be a truly good, sovereign nation, the best that we can be, we must be just and compassionate, an example for other countries to follow, but we must never be arrogant.

---
"The more you read and learn, the less your adversary will know." --Sun Tzu

<a href="http://www.cic.gc.ca/english/department/legacy/chap-5.html">http://www.cic.gc.ca/english/department/legacy/chap-5.html</a><br />
QUOTE:<br />
"....the national debt had quadrupled"<br />
<br />
"Moreover, most of the wartime spending had been in Canada, resulting in the doubling of the gross national product."<br />
<br />
I would daresay that those in power who would gain the most (monetarily) in this country, do not have shares or interests in businesses that would gain from a military buildup on the scale you mention. They are therefore, not interested. Like our Mr. Mulroney was wont to think, if we need it, we'll just buy it. <br />
<br />
Though the National Debt was quadrupled in WWII, the doubling of the GNP more than offset this. Today, the spending would end up off shore, and the national debt would be ruinous with no way to pay it off.<br />
<p>---<br>RickW

Canada doesn’t have to be number one in the world.

But, we should put our own interests, trade, security and national defence first and foremost when dealing with the rest of the world. Taking care of ourselves first.

Making Canada safe, strong, secure and non dependant on anyone else but ourselves.

Instead of being the little follower mopping up every other nations messes, trying to fix every other nations problems and mistakes. Letting foreign nations dictate our future instead of Canadians. Improving their business opportunities, security and national defence.

There are 26 nations doing peacekeeping at the U.N.

Why is it always Canada doing more then its share and paying the tab?

Then being condemned by the U.S.A., Australia and Great Britain for doing it when it doesn’t fall into there line of thinking! Lets not forget that Australia's Goverenment implied Canada and Canadians were cowards for not suporting the U.S.A. in Iraq a few years back.

Let’s start looking after Canada first!

Why is concept so abhorrent to Canadians and looked upon as anti-American, anti-Business but looked up to when other nations do it?


---
Perception is two thirds of what we perceive reality to be.

Difficult decisions are a privilege of rank.

I disagree.

The majority of Corporations in Canada are owned by American corporations which have interests in other US companies that support the defence industries with no vested interests in Canada or Canadians.

Nuts, bolts, screws, aluminum, steel, fiberglass, plastics, lumber, concrete, welding, hand tools, clothing, piping etc. etc. etc...

>>the spending would end up off shore, and the national debt would be ruinous with no way to pay it off. <<

I disagree.

Under NAFTA and other trade agreements defence spending comes under national security. This allows Canada or any other nation to allow bidding and awarding of contracts to companies within their national borders only as well as keeping the final assembly in country. Resulting in the doubling of the gross national product locally.


---
Perception is two thirds of what we perceive reality to be.

Difficult decisions are a privilege of rank.

Also have to remember that if Canada builds up its military, under the already existing agreements and treaties, it will be under US command and not for the protection of Canada's borders.

This is the secret of the whole plan and the courting of Canada by US politicians, plus the enthusiasm of some Canadian officers.

Ed Deak.

<blockquote>The majority of Corporations in Canada are owned by American corporations </blockquote> That <b>IS</b> offshore............does there actually have to be water between us to label it such? <p>Also, Canada sub-contracts to American military-industrial complex, whether it be American-owned subdiaries is beside the point. That has set the precedent to allow American companies to "participate" in Canadian defense industries.</p> Besides, few canadian business people or politicans have interests in Candian businesses.....so there would be no money in war preparations for them.........<p>---<br>RickW

Any comparison with the situation during WWII is on the one hand outrageously flawed, yet on the other hand somewhat valid. That's only one part of the problem.

"Resulting in the doubling of the gross national product locally."

What the unholy hell does that mean?

The GNP either goes for for the nation, stays constant, or declines for the nation as a WHOLE.

That's why it's called the Gross NATIONAL Product and not the Gross LOCAL Product.

See the difference?





---
"and the knowledge they fear is a weapon to be used against them"

"The Weapon" - Rush

<blockquote>Canada doesn’t have to be number one in the world.</blockquote> It's like in "Meet the Fokkers". Celebrating 6th place is entirely A-OK! <p>---<br>RickW

Not much different than Canada's GNP being affected by Alberta's spectacular rise............. You should be critique-ing the Da Vinci code the way it was done in Maclean's: <b>They didn't put a "the" in front of a descriptive adjective. Therefore, that makes the whole idea, as well as the author, invalid.....</b><p>---<br>RickW