It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Harper announces new military strategy

page: 3
6
<< 1  2    4 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on May, 14 2008 @ 10:24 AM
link   
reply to post by MareNostra
 



Good post.

At one point in my life I agreed with you. Now, after many years of living and traveling in US circles I disagree.

. California is to Georgia as Oranges are to Peaches. Same goes with Canada. Canada is to Washighton as Puerto Rico is to Washington. Different history, culture..in fact it feels like living in a foreign country when you move from California to the great state of Georgia, or "Rico" to Oklahoma, or Florida to Canada. The culture is different but the man holding the whip is not.

Culture will not stop dominance. The leaders of the US know this…they are not after the culture, they are after water, oil, rare earth, minerals etc.

I do not believe we can stop them. (the USA) Mulroney already saw to that and Harper is much worse then Brian Mulroney ever thought of being.

edited to clarify my ideas and %$#

[edit on 14-5-2008 by whiteraven]




posted on May, 14 2008 @ 10:30 AM
link   
reply to post by Spaxz
 


Some of the bravest people I have met are in the Canadian military. I support more money and equipment to these people.

I do not support the Harper goverment looking at developing a military/industrial complex as is hinted at in the last page of the article.

"Harper said the government's long-term procurement policy will result in building industrial capacity as businesses work with the military to supply new technology and equipment"

Right out of post WW2 US doctrine.....



posted on May, 14 2008 @ 10:32 AM
link   

Originally posted by whiteraven
So, with that in mind why is Harper trying to compete on the military front? Why is the USA allowing Harper to do this?


No one is competing with the US, this is just giving our troops what they need to do the job.

The US is allowing our gov't to upgrade our military weaponry? I don't think they have any say in it, as shown by your examples above.



posted on May, 14 2008 @ 10:47 AM
link   
reply to post by intrepid
 



So who killed the Arrow? Who sought and stole the technology of Gerald Bull?

The direction of a military buildup in order to be able to stand with other nations in this fashion runs against Canadian Culture. Since when do we want to build a military machine. Why do we need it? Do the Swiss have a mighty military? Does Italy? Do the Dutch?

We can still be distinct, proud and free without spending money on a huge builup. Invest in our recent historic direction..the direction laid bare by Chrétien, Trudeau...the world has enough war mongers.


(I say free in the sense that we percieve we are free)




[edit on 14-5-2008 by whiteraven]



posted on May, 14 2008 @ 11:07 AM
link   
if you are going to quote what harper says in this article maybe you should quote the second paragraph:
"The Canada First defence strategy will strengthen our sovereignty and our security. Our government will ensure the Canadian Forces have the personnel and equipment they need to do their job - to protect our values and protect our interests, to fulfil Canada's international commitments, to keep our true north strong and free," Harper said.

sounds to me like his plan is to keep canada as independent from the states as possible. not to say he isnt two-faced, like nearly any politician out there, but how can't this be a good thing? if you are extrapolating from his last paragraph that he is building an industrial-military complex to fit in with the NAU / NWO scenario but ignoring what he says right out about protecting our sovereignty then it seems to me like you are looking for the conspiracy. If you think he is vaguely hinting at building up for the NAU, if you notice, he's hinting very strongly about going against it and keeping our "true noth strong and free".
and "Neo Nazi RCMP?" seriously get your head out of your ass. Do you kno ho many visible minorities are RCMP officers?? who are allowed to wear religious headware, turbans, etc while on the job?? archives.cbc.ca...
This precedent was set almost 20 years ago. does that sound anything close to what Neo Nazism espouts??
en.wikipedia.org...
I mean i agree wih who said that the RCMP is working hand in hand with the hells angels, maybe not across the board but ive seen it in Vnacouver, i was amazed actually at how seamlessly the two fit together there. but Neo Nazi, you just sound like you're jaded because you got busted at some point in your life for something stupid.



posted on May, 14 2008 @ 11:12 AM
link   

Originally posted by whiteraven
Canada has maintained a peaceable rep. throughout the world. As you read the article Harper hints at wanting to be a military player.

I am aware of Russian, Danish, and American activity in the North but there are better ways to secure the North. Developing jobs, infastructure,resources would be a far better way to spend 30 billion. IMO


And if none of that works, try appeasement.


I, for one, am happy to see Canda start to take some responsibilty for its own defense. Tired of seeing Canada crawl out from under the U.S. defense umbrella to try and punch us in the ankle over some pissant little issue, or to try an meddle in our politics.



posted on May, 14 2008 @ 11:13 AM
link   

Originally posted by whiteraven
reply to post by intrepid
 



So who killed the Arrow? Who sought and stole the technology of Gerald Bull?


History. We are discussing now.


The direction of a military buildup in order to be able to stand with other nations in this fashion runs against Canadian Culture. Since when do we want to build a military machine. Why do we need it?


This isn't a "buildup" it's a refit. New equiptment.


Do the Swiss have a mighty military? Does Italy? Do the Dutch?


The Dutch do:

en.wikipedia.org...

I don't understand your not wanting our troops to have better equiptment than the antiquated junk they have now. They are serving us ALL!



posted on May, 14 2008 @ 11:19 AM
link   
reply to post by centurion1211
 


That's a complete stretch. Canada has always held her own internationally. Our troops are some of the best trained anywhere, the tools sucked and they still did their job. Can you show me where we had to rely on the US for anything of this nature?



posted on May, 14 2008 @ 11:43 AM
link   
reply to post by intrepid
 


It's hardly a secret that relying on the U.S. to defend Canada is what allowed Canada to spend money instead on expensive socialism programs - and why military equipment was allowed to degrade.

Here's a Canadian article on the subject that shows that even they understand and acknowledge hiding under the U.S. defense umbrella:

article


Despite the end of the Cold War, we continue to assert that Canada's own defence relies on the "nuclear umbrella" that the United States and other NATO allies have unfurled above us ...



posted on May, 14 2008 @ 01:09 PM
link   
reply to post by centurion1211
 




The Ploughshares Monitor

June 1995, volume 16, no. 2


Who? Could you find something in Macleans or a reputable newspaper? We have plenty of those.



posted on May, 14 2008 @ 01:44 PM
link   
reply to post by kidney thief
 


No, I have always been treated fairly by the police. In all countries as well.

I, personaly, see the need for law and there by recognize the need for some group of persons to enforce the law.

With that in mind I try not to take my own expierance with the police as the end all.

I hear, read and see what has happened to others when it comes to the police and so I must broaden my scope upon this issue.

And so, with that idea, if I feel as a citizen that police powers are going toward a fascist swing I will swing left.

I feel this is my duty as a citizen. Nothing personal.
I have argued from the other side as well!



posted on May, 14 2008 @ 01:45 PM
link   
reply to post by intrepid
 


Hell, I don't know who is reputable in Canada and who is not. It did seem reasonable to me, however, that an anti-nuke organization would be able to pass muster ...




posted on May, 14 2008 @ 01:50 PM
link   
reply to post by intrepid
 

A refit? How do you know? The white paper is not out yet.
I support a refit. Lets see how much of the 30 billion goes toward a refit!
network.nationalpost.com...


Quote"Call it the anti-White Paper. The “Canada First “ vision for our nation’s armed forces articulated – sort of – by Prime Minister Stephen Harper in Halifax on Monday is the polar opposite of the last major blueprint, the 1994 White Paper that called for deep cuts in our military and was so lustily welcomed by the then Liberal government"



[edit on 14-5-2008 by whiteraven]



posted on May, 15 2008 @ 01:03 AM
link   
More info. Interesting if you read the last paragraph.


www.canada.com...

Quote"Asked if he was comfortable with how the briefing had unfolded, the office said: "It becomes a challenge."

Military planners said they took a comprehensive modern approach to predict what global security risks or "conflict drivers" such as terrorism, climate change or population migration would drive up demand for the services of the Forces.

"Food is one, oil is another one, water is one," said another military official



posted on May, 15 2008 @ 08:09 AM
link   
reply to post by whiteraven
 


I understand the points that you are making and respect your life experience which has brought you to these conclusions. I haven't lived in the US but after living in five different provinces in Canada and particularly after living in Val Cartier, Quebec and then in Shilo, Manitoba – it was unquestionably akin to living in two foreign countries.

And yes, naturally, culture has nothing to do with why the US would want to become a union with Canada and if I implied this it was unintentional.

Yesterday, I emailed these theories to my neighbours and colleagues in an attempt to get a consensus of sorts - I live on a military base and thus the ideological baseline is certainly limited. Regardless, the reactions I have received thus far have been exceptionally aggressive. This makes me wonder if Canadians would surprise a lot of people in the end or is it simply as many people surveyed were Canadian Forces members and thus possibly more hard lined in regards to nationalism than the average Canadian. Nonetheless, it has been proven time and time again, that even the gentlest of creatures can become dangerous when cornered.

True, we may not be able to stop a union – however, the introduction and creation of this union would not be a passive event.

On that note I also believe, despondently, that a few Canadian provinces could be bought if the US tabled the right proposition.

Or is this totally off topic.



posted on May, 15 2008 @ 09:55 AM
link   
No not at all off topic...part of the broader picture pertaining to the buildup.


I agree that the "buying" of a couple of provinces is in the works. I have thought that for the past 20 years.

But..i do not believe "they" want to divide Canada...they want to bring it into the Union "lock, stock and barrel".

How? Their needs to be some event that would force the idea of a Union to be the only rational idea.

Look at the last line of the updated article..."or "conflict drivers" such as terrorism, climate change or population migration would drive up demand for the services of the Forces.

"Food is one, oil is another one, water is one," said another military official "

Food...water....very good conflict drivers!
Population migration...What do they know that we do not?

Why an army needed for the above conflict drivers?

Trudeau called upon the military because of the Laporte crisis. This was sort of a surprise though. Harper is planning on building the military not because of a threat from another country, or Quebec, but in order to bring civil order in case of "Food, oil, or water." Hmmmm

[edit on 15-5-2008 by whiteraven]



posted on May, 15 2008 @ 10:52 AM
link   

Originally posted by centurion1211
reply to post by intrepid
 


It's hardly a secret that relying on the U.S. to defend Canada is what allowed Canada to spend money instead on expensive socialism programs - and why military equipment was allowed to degrade.


Personally I would like to any kind of proof that the US has protected us from anything. Last time I checked there was no countries lined up to abuse our sovereignty through military force. Getting pretty tired of that being thrown out there like it is some kind of fact. Anyway enough of my "Anti-American rhetoric"/

As far as the article goes, I am with alot of people. This is not a bad thing. Why should we be stuck overpaying someone's else's crap. Leaky submarines, defunct helicopters, planes with tech so old they don't register as friendly to other air forces radar. This has to stop. You want to be proud of your country, well here is a good place to start. The mojority of the people in the world that see Canadians aren't seeing the people that vacation in the Dominican or Cuba, they are seeing our ground forces in their country, keeping them alive. Our forces are driving around in Land Rovers from the 70's, using weapons that are outclassed by those used against them. We can have the best trained forces int he world but with garbage equipment it is useless. Any knucklehead in Corvette is going to beat an F1 driver in a Chevy Sprint.

The thought of Canadians developing our own weapons and equipment is really the best idea anyway. American equipment might be good and all, but it was not designed for Canada. Surprisingly we have a climate that is different than that of America. We need stuff that can handle our environment.



posted on May, 15 2008 @ 04:25 PM
link   
reply to post by Rook1545
 


"The thought of Canadians developing our own weapons and equipment is really the best idea anyway. American equipment might be good and all, but it was not designed for Canada. Surprisingly we have a climate that is different than that of America. We need stuff that can handle our environment."

The Federal PC goverment tried this. They succeeded. They built the fastest jet known to man at that time. The Arrow.

Then what? The PC goverment scrapped it and said "it never existed"

I am all for upgrading the troops gear, they need about 50 billion to get started.

The question is where is this 30 billion going? The white paper does not exist.

I thought this was a democracy. Why can Harper, with all of his resources, not tell us how this money is tagged?

Because, it is not going to where we assume its going?

Look at the history of our military. We have always had the best men. Hell, I know two US Marines who are knee deep in Afghan putang right now who are full blood Canadians.

My question is this...where is the money going?



posted on May, 15 2008 @ 05:22 PM
link   
reply to post by whiteraven
 


I don't think it is as bleak as you think. Maybe the reason it hasn't been earmarked because they don't know what will be feasible yet. All they have done so far is outlined the plan that they plan to spend that money on military projects. I am curious to see where they are going with this before I get bent about it.



posted on May, 18 2008 @ 01:47 PM
link   
=[/gvidreply to post by Rook1545
 





[edit on 18-5-2008 by whiteraven]




top topics



 
6
<< 1  2    4 >>

log in

join