Alberta's Ticket Out? Poll

[Resolute 14]

Originally Posted by Muta

You guys are such keyboard warriors, it's kinda funny.

So we shouldn't have a military because it's incapable of doing anything against the American war machine?

No, we dont need a military because of that.

Then why do hundreds of other countries around the world have militaries, then?

Because hundreds of other countries share borders with hundreds of other neighbours of somewhat equal power, often ruled by tin-pot dictatorships, religious fanatics, or by those who wish to be a world power.

While I might disingenously call this coalition a tin-pot dictatorship, the simple fact is, Alberta alone does not share an eastern, western or northern border with a nation that is a threat. To the south is a nation that could be, but already is if it so chooses. And Alberta would be completely incapable of being a world power militarily.

Your argument has no basis in the realities of Alberta's supposed situation.

[Thunderball]

Alberta would require a standing army, reservists, and basic airforce... if only for civil unrest, natural disasters, terrorism, etc. While I agree with T99 and Resolute that we don't need a huge army, we need enough to deal with basic domestic issues. Anything above and beyond that, like Canada as it stands, we would likely be under the US security umbrella.

Of course, most of the equipment would be Canada's. Assuming Alberta gets saddled with 10% of Canada's National Debt on its way out... Alberta would also be deserving of 10% of Canada's infrastructure. (Same with Quebec, except up debt/assets to 25%) That means planes, tanks, trucks, guns, etc. The issue would be manpower, but I'd be willing to bet that would be easier to accomplish than some may think.

[Resolute 14]

Originally Posted by Lchoy

Your viewpoint is a little narrow. I agree if US self interests were threatened, they would come to the republic of Alberta's aid, but what about the countries and entities that wish to attack the States? If there was no military, you bet the US would be pissed at our attitude, and the crossings into Montana would be more secure than the Mexican border (think how that will affect our trade/travel). Without a national military and intelligence network, the US would be vulnerable at our end. That won't be something they would stand for, unless you wish for US presence on our soil, in which case, would take away from a soverignty anyways.

You are confusing a capable military with a border service.

[Ronald Pagan]

Weird brand of Conservatism on these boards.

The classic 'conservative' belief is that the state is good only for providing military defence and a justice system protecting property rights.

Here apparently a military isn't an important concern.

Who are these new weird conservatives and what have they done with the old ones?

[Ozy_Flame]

Originally Posted by Resolute 14

Your argument has no basis in the realities of Alberta's supposed situation.

Last I checked, the Northwest Territories is pretty much a simple walk through the park to get to Alberta's oil. And with the development of much more dangerous artillery, army, and navy power, you don't think a rogue nation wouldn't just waltz into Northern Alberta for an attack on Alberta, Canada, or the U.S.? Of course right now that seems far-fetched, but it wasn't too long ago that it was a distinct possibility when the Soviets were in power. That's why we had to set up the Early defense warning lines on different parallels of Canadian soil.

[LChoy]

Canadian Border Security doesn't have the mandate to stop a pipeline bombing that affects Oil and Gas delivery to the US Western Sea board...

[transplant99]

While I agree with T99 and Resolute that we don't need a huge army, we need enough to deal with basic domestic issues

A national guard type. No question...but a "military" force capable of standing up to a hostile nation. Dont have one now, dont know why that would change.

[Muta]

Originally Posted by Resolute 14

Your argument has no basis in the realities of Alberta's supposed situation.

So, because the United States hasn't chosen to invade Alberta in the past, they won't in the future for whatever reason?

You're right.... until oil becomes a globally scarce resource, and Alberta gets defensive. I must be lost.

While it unlikely the US ever invades into Albertan / Canadian soil, I don't think it's impossible to suggest otherwise for whatever reason.

[ok, ok,....I get it]

Originally Posted by transplant99

Why would a military be needed?

make a deal with the US if need be, or sign a pact with whats left of Canada.

Lots of countries get along quite nicely without a military force.

like who...?

[transplant99]

Last I checked, the Northwest Territories is pretty much a simple walk through the park to get to Alberta's oil.

From where and by who...and woudn't this mythical force that now protects Alberta still protect the NWT if Alberta was no langer part of Canada??

You've also lost me.

[Resolute 14]

Originally Posted by Ozy_Flame

Last I checked, the Northwest Territories is pretty much a simple walk through the park to get to Alberta's oil. And with the development of much more dangerous artillery, army, and navy power, you don't think a rogue nation wouldn't just waltz into Northern Alberta for an attack on Alberta, Canada, or the U.S.? Of course right now that seems far-fetched, but it wasn't too long ago that it was a distinct possibility when the Soviets were in power. That's why we had to set up the Early defense warning lines on different parallels of Canadian soil.

I am really not certain why you think pointing out that Canada is not defensible today is a winning argument here.

[transplant99]

So, because the United States hasn't chosen to invade Alberta in the past, they won't in the future for whatever reason?

But even if they had in the past...who was going to stop them? Please elaborate.

[transplant99]

Originally Posted by ok, ok,....I get it

like who...?

One quick google...it lists 20+ nations though obviously many are really insignificant.

I was not aware Iceland did not have a standing military.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of...t_armed_forces

[Resolute 14]

Originally Posted by Muta

So, because the United States hasn't chosen to invade Alberta in the past, they won't in the future for whatever reason?

Irrelevant. Neither Alberta as province of Canada, nor Alberta as an independent republic could stand up to the US in a military action. what the Americans might do in the future doesn't really matter, as we couldn't stop them either way.

[Ozy_Flame]

Originally Posted by Resolute 14

I am really not certain why you think pointing out that Canada is not defensible today is a winning argument here.

Because the "reality" of Alberta's situation is that it could happen.

The Northwest Passage is about to open up for much easier naval movement with recent trends in climate change. Why do you think Harper's government was so staunch to consider it "Canada's" passageway?

The "reality" is that a passageway is a very real possibility into Alberta. You can't just say our own borders are impregnable because we're landlocked. Last I checked, Canada doesn't exactly have a Maginot Line of defense in the NWT.

[FlamesAddiction]

I doubt the international community would even recognize such a thing. Alberta would be quickly occupied by the Canadian military and no one would care - not even the U.S.

[ok, ok,....I get it]

Originally Posted by transplant99

One quick google...it lists 20+ nations though obviously many are really insignificant.

I was not aware Iceland did not have a standing military.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of...t_armed_forces

Wow some real power players on that list.........many of those "countries" are countries in name only......there are actually protectorates

[Resolute 14]

Originally Posted by Ozy_Flame

Because the "reality" of Alberta's situation is that it could happen.

The Northwest Passage is about to open up for much easier naval movement with recent trends in climate change. Why do you think Harper's government was so staunch to consider it "Canada's" passageway?

The "reality" is that a passageway is a very real possibility into Alberta. You can't just say our own borders are impregnable because we're landlocked. Last I checked, Canada doesn't exactly have a Maginot Line of defense in the NWT.

Ok, so once this mythical nation invades Canada, you think that the Canadians and Americans are going to sit around and go "well, they're just going for Alberta, we'll let them pass."

[ok, ok,....I get it]

can a mod put an actual poll up so we can see some results?

[Thunderball]

Originally Posted by FlamesAddiction

I doubt the international community would even recognize such a thing. Alberta would be quickly occupied by the Canadian military and no one would care - not even the U.S.

Wow, I guess that explains why East Timor and Kosovo aren't recognized by the international community. Oh wait, yes they are.

You also think the US wouldn't freak out that their "safest" significant supply of foreign oil is in a civil war? You think they wouldn't react?

I don't think so.