Cellucci's Recipe - How Canada Should Modernize Its Military

Posted on Tuesday, February 08 at 14:27 by lgrisley
1."Washington would like Canada to beef up its elite JTF2 special forces and establish a Canadian strike force that could deploy anywhere in the world on short notice". 2. The "U.S. would also like Canada's security agencies...to help collect and interpret intelligence for its allies". 3. "on missile defence, Cellucci said he hoped Prime Minister Martin would give his approval before he leaves as ambassador on March 18..." Cellucci also has some advice for the critics of his recipe. First, he pointed out that, unlike Canada, during the recent tsunami tragedy "it was U.S. helicopters which got there quickly because we have the capacity to deliver choppers and the soldiers where they were needed and they were providing water and food to people who would have died without it." While we should applaud the humanitarian efforts of the U.S, I thought there were other nations, including Canada, helping out? Maybe, someone should point out that CNN is not the only television channel available in Canada. And to forestall any economic naysayers regarding costs, Cellucci states that "this would require an increase in defence spending, but I don't think it would be overwhelming..." While I believe that more funding is necessary our military capability and vigorous debate is required regarding Canada's role in an ever dangerous world, this is an exclusively Canadian matter. We don't need another scolding from the US ambassador or his suggestions about where we should spend taxpayers' money. Equally important, why do some journalists simply parrot what is said by American officials? Don't most journalists endorse critical thinking? If it's simply about printing the scripted text, then we don't need journalists. Regarding Ambassador Cellucci, would it be too impolite to ask even some obvious questions: 1. How would the American government respond to our Canadian Ambassador if he told the White House what policies they should follow? Isn't this a breach of diplomatic protocol, and unacceptable? 2. What is your response to your own American Union of Concerned Scentists (20,000 plus) who are opposed to the U.S. "missile defence" project because it won't work, will cost trillions of dollars and will accelerate the proliferation of nuclear weapons? Richard Julien

Contributed By


Article Rating

 (0 votes) 

Options




Comments

  1. Thu Feb 10, 2005 5:00 am
    Cellucci must have some sort of wager made with someone? Oh, I don't know maybe the CEO of Lockheed Martin or even Bush himself that he can get us signed on to Missile Defence before he leaves, like that would be an apropriate going away gift. It feels like he's desperate to sign us up onto his multi-level marketing scheme for weapons sales. There's something in it for him other than just needling us because he just can't fathom that we just don't like him and his pyramid business associates.

    ---
    "Yeah, well, [Mr. President] we used all five fingers because that's the way our mittens are made." Antonia Zerbisias

  2. Thu Feb 10, 2005 6:47 am
    Celluci only pointed out the most obvious and basic stuff.

  3. by hoopoe
    Sat Feb 12, 2005 7:16 am
    Don't you get it, it's none of Celluci's business.

  4. Sat Feb 12, 2005 7:57 am
    Canada has signed defence agreements with the United States, so it is his business to point out that we are not living up to what we agreed to.

  5. Sat Feb 12, 2005 9:19 am
    What have we signed that we have not lived up to? I'd like to read what you read, where can I find that?

    Did we sign a contract stating that the US Ambassador has the right to order our military needs for us? We didn't even sign on for the Liberals to be signing on to things like Missile Defence so we have every right to be spouting our disapproval. When the US gets rid of their stockpile of weapons, signs on to the International Criminal Court, Kyoto,and stops developing nuclear weapons the rest of us may feel a little more generous about being told what to do and not to do.

    ---
    "Yeah, well, [Mr. President] we used all five fingers because that's the way our mittens are made." Antonia Zerbisias

  6. Sat Feb 12, 2005 9:21 pm
    Luckily, the US has some sanity - they're not going to sign on to a political court that will turn into a United Nations of bogus 'convictions'(resolutions) against the West. Nor are they going to sign on to a massive economic regulatory regime that will screw their economy. Nor will they stop developing the best weapons systems in the world, both offence and defence, when fascist tyrannies like Iran keep threatening to engulf people in a 'sea of fire'.

    Canadians are suckers for believing in the goodwill of Kyoto bureaucrats, international politics lawyers and blatantly self-interested 'do-gooders'(lol) at the United Nations - given half a chance, all these groups would rape Canada.

  7. Sun Feb 13, 2005 10:00 am
    Well instead of missile defence maybe the US could just give us one big CONDOM! But rapists usually aren't that considerate are they?

    ---
    "Yeah, well, [Mr. President] we used all five fingers because that's the way our mittens are made." Antonia Zerbisias

  8. Sun Feb 13, 2005 10:32 pm
    ??? apparently you are so confused and focused on being against something because the Americans are for it, like missile defence, that you can't see what is in Canada's best interests.

  9. by avatar canuck
    Tue Feb 15, 2005 8:22 am
    What you don't seem to understand is that BMD hasn't, doesn't, and never will work. So why should Canada contribute anything to this boondoggle which serves no purpose other than giving handouts to US denfense contractors?

    Is it just me or do BMD propnents get louder with every test failure?

  10. Tue Feb 15, 2005 9:44 am
    I believe the missile defence shield is essentially a defence against China and Russia. These two countries will attempt to build more and better missiles to continue the M.A.D. policy (50 years now!). Then the U.S. will try to close the "missile gap"- another arms race. This was the reasoning behind the anti-ballistic missile treaty in 1972. I guess I'm getting old, history is repeating itself. The real answer to security has always been to negotiate arms treaties, not abrogate them. No policy or treaty is perfect, it's just somewhat better than having no rules at all.

  11. Tue Feb 15, 2005 2:43 pm
    The real answer to security has always been hard military assets that can provide a defence or pre-emptively stop an attack from happening.

    Defence agreements are only signed when one side wants to buy time from the other side until their economy or tactical situation improves.

    Ask Stalin what he thinks of a 'Non-aggression' pact. lol...

  12. by avatar Jesse
    Tue Feb 15, 2005 6:41 pm
    The US has enough mossiles *already built* to destroy the entire world several times over. They don't need to build any more to 'protect' themselves from communists, er, I mean terrorists.

    ---
    Canadians are asking, why do americans hate us? They hate our freedoms: our freedom of religion, our freedom of speech, our freedom to disagree with each other.

  13. Tue Feb 15, 2005 10:03 pm
    I hope the people who oppose this kind of pressure also oppose bribing the Russians into signing the Kyoto Accords, which was an out and out disgrace. What does WTO have to do with Kyoto radification anyway. It shouldn't have a thing. If Canada was part of the bribers then it should button up. It has lost all right to complain.

  14. Tue Mar 01, 2005 7:19 pm
    Wazzzzup John? sorry man... forget to giver you green/red pill today.
    Nah, just joking.
    You are missing the point. Cellulose should shut his trap.
    The only threat right at this moment to Canada is the USA. They have prove it again and again by their bullying tactics (softwood lumber as one example). Cellulose shows yet again the classic arrogance of their Gov.

    Fiddle diddle
    or

    Like Green Day said:
    I won't be part of a redneck agenda.



view comments in forum


You need to be a member and be logged into the site, to comment on stories.




Your Voice

To post to the site, just sign up for a free membership/user account and then hit submit. Posts in English or French are welcome. You can email any other suggestions or comments on site content to the site editor. (Please note that Vive le Canada does not necessarily endorse the opinions or comments posted on the site.)

canadian bloggers | canadian news