Arm guards and we'll shut border: Mohawk Warriors

[jolinar of malkshor]

Originally Posted by Knalus

I understand that, most people do. Perhaps ridiculous is too strong a word, but I do have a point. Most people don't ever question what countries really are for, what they are supposed to do, and what they should instead be doing. Nationalism has been around for so long, most people don't know what things might look like if it didn't exist. I know this is a bit of hyperbole, but we really hated the communists for keeping their people within their own borders, imprisoning them and not letting them be "free" to come and go as they would. Now that this argument isn't needed, now we can arm the border, right? Now that someone elses wall no longer needs to be torn down, now we have the right to build our own? I once believed it was a point of pride that Canada and the US had the world's longest undefended border. Now we have guns on the border guards - I guess we can't say that anymore. Are we supposed to no longer be proud of that? It's now gone, does no one else find that a little sad? The freedoms of the free world are being eroded - and too many are cheering.

We don't keep anyone in our country, they are always free to leave so you cannot compare communist Russia to today's democratic governments in the Western World.

Maybe one day we can all be on nation but the world is not even close to that point in time. I give it about 500-1000 years.

[DESS]

Originally Posted by CaptainCrunch

I was trained to be a soldier first. When I went through basic and through my infantry training school, we didn't even talk or think about peacekeeping.

We were taught military dicipline, we were taught the use of firearms, explosive devices, ambush sciences. Building a proper and secure encampment, day patrols and night patrols. We war gamed like mad. We were taught to fight wars first and foremost. For those of us that went on to peacekeeping, we would usually train for that specific peacekeeping machine before we deployed.

Foreign policy had nothing to do with it, a soldiers first job is to know how to soldier, if we needed to peace keep, we learned how to do it.

Sounds more like a soldier's job is to do what is needed of him/her. If that's fighting, fine. If that's peacekeeping, fine. If that's sandbagging river banks, fine. If that's going nose to nose with a Mohawk "warrior" and not blinking, that's fine, too. Would have been nice to see a soldier break rank and bayonet one of those fracktards during the Oka standoff, but I guess it's good they followed their orders.

[Knalus]

Originally Posted by jolinar of malkshor

We don't keep anyone in our country, they are always free to leave so you cannot compare communist Russia to today's democratic governments in the Western World.

Maybe one day we can all be on nation but the world is not even close to that point in time. I give it about 500-1000 years.

But Canada and the States are. Why do I need a passport to visit the states? Fear of outsiders? That's all a giant load of bull. It's all about control, and politics - most of which is unnecessary, inconvenient, and morally negative. Why should I have to deal with that kind of inconvenience because a bureaucrat needs to up his salary/make an excuse for what he's doing and another politician scared enough grandmas about the evil's of the outside world so he can get re-elected?

Call me idealistic, but I don't trust where this is going. The exact opposite of what you assumed I was thinking about. I'm more worried than hopeful of where these two countries are going.

[Titan]

Originally Posted by DESS

You have a pretty romantic view of soldiers that I reject. A soldier's primary mission in fact is to stand in a line and look menacing. Most armies in the world have a primary function of defence/deterrence. Having them literally stand in a line and look menacing is a natural extension of their figurative role.

Originally Posted by DESS

We'll agree to disagree then.

Originally Posted by DESS

Do you have any examples of my errors to back up your handi-capable post?

You feel free to dismiss the opinion of a professional soldier. You feel qualified to state the primary function of a military without any facts or support for your position. You think you know the role of defence/deterrence is to stand in a line to be shot at at leisure.

I think I will listen to someone that has been there and been trained before you. People that think they know better just because they pay the taxes piss me off. Pick up a rifle and walk the wall or just say thank you, to misquote the line.

As I said you are free to have an opinion, no matter how misinfored it may be and inspite of what a professional tells you.

[jolinar of malkshor]

Originally Posted by Knalus

But Canada and the States are. Why do I need a passport to visit the states? Fear of outsiders? That's all a giant load of bull. It's all about control, and politics - most of which is unnecessary, inconvenient, and morally negative. Why should I have to deal with that kind of inconvenience because a bureaucrat needs to up his salary/make an excuse for what he's doing and another politician scared enough grandmas about the evil's of the outside world so he can get re-elected?

Call me idealistic, but I don't trust where this is going. The exact opposite of what you assumed I was thinking about. I'm more worried than hopeful of where these two countries are going.

Canada and the US are far enough apart on many issues that it wouldn't work. Are you Canadian? If you are you might aswell kiss your job goodby if you want to open up the borders to all Americans. You think thats what Canadians want? 300 million more possible job seekers into their job market?

[Knalus]

Originally Posted by jolinar of malkshor

Canada and the US are far enough apart on many issues that it wouldn't work. Are you Canadian? If you are you might aswell kiss your job goodby if you want to open up the borders to all Americans. You think thats what Canadians want? 300 million more possible job seekers into their job market?

Have you lived in Calgary? Cause at least a few months ago, we had nowhere near enough workers, YES I would like all of them to come to Calgary. As many Mexicans as can come as well. The inflation in Calgary has been pretty rough these past 5 years - mostly due to the lack of workers in this country. In addition, due to the ageing of the boomers, we are soon (10 years) going to need all the workers we can possibly get our hands on.

The POLITICIANS are far enough apart on those issues. Canadians are different from the typical american, yes, but you need to realize that most americans aren't your typical american, either. Californians are as different from Texans, as Newfoundlanders are from Floridians. The artificial differences between the different segments of our two countries are made up - mostly because Canadian politicians are really, really scared about the continuing existence of Canada. You can't tell me I'm more different from a Minnesotan than I am from a Quebecois - I've been to both, I'll tell you it's easy to tell which of these things is not like the others.

Open the borders.

[CaptainCrunch]

Originally Posted by DESS

Sounds more like a soldier's job is to do what is needed of him/her. If that's fighting, fine. If that's peacekeeping, fine. If that's sandbagging river banks, fine. If that's going nose to nose with a Mohawk "warrior" and not blinking, that's fine, too. Would have been nice to see a soldier break rank and bayonet one of those fracktards during the Oka standoff, but I guess it's good they followed their orders.

A soldier is first and foremost trained to fight, his first duty is to the defense of his nation and to carry out the wishes of the command authority.

So yes, there is a certain amount of flexibility thats required by a soldier in order to be able to perform his role. If he needs to go peacekeeping then he goes and trains before his specific mission so that he can effectively peacekeep. There's no training for disastor relief, I didn't train for hours on the technique of stopping a flood, or putting out a forest fire, or in one horrible afternoon, try to find the body of a kid up in the Banff area.

We didn't take course in basic on riot control or civil unrest.

Your right, a good soldier does follow orders, but they also should question these orders, especially the stupid ones.

I always thought that the Oka crisis was stupidly handled. The Warriors shouldn't have seen one soldier there, they should have heard them, maybe had some of their buddies vanish only to show up in jail. They should have known that they were up against professionals who had the training advantage on them and the drop on them, but the Soldiers were told to act more like cops. You can talk about a good soldier being a mere extension of national policy, but thats only because the people that make national policy really don't know what a soldier is, or what he's capable of.

In terms of peacekeeping, I've always thought that the best idea that I heard in a long time was the creation of a specific peacekeeping unit. Train them to wave the flag, stand in between warring sides, act like a social worker, a humanitarian, a logistics expert for emergency supplies and a engineer in building schools. Train them on small arms, vehicle searches and diplomacy.

It would probably be cheaper and save more lives then trying to order a soldier to act like something that at the end of the day he's really not.

[llama64]

Originally Posted by CaptainCrunch

I was trained to be a soldier first. When I went through basic and through my infantry training school, we didn't even talk or think about peacekeeping. When I went out on field excercises, we trained to fight the Evil Red Hordes of communist Kaplakistan, not to stand in between warring factions of them.

We were taught military dicipline, we were taught the use of firearms, explosive devices, ambush sciences. Building a proper and secure encampment, day patrols and night patrols. We war gamed like mad. We were taught to fight wars first and foremost. For those of us that went on to peacekeeping, we would usually train for that specific peacekeeping machine before we deployed.

Foreign policy had nothing to do with it, a soldiers first job is to know how to soldier and to survive and suceed in a violent atmosphere, if we needed to peace keep, we learned how to do it.

Actually, Foreign Policy has everything to do with the military. It is the instrument with which a nation defends or imposes it's will. Since a military is composed by soldiers, one would naturally assume that the soldier's training reflects the nation's intentions.

If Canada were an aggressive nation, our military would be training for assault, capture and invasion tactics. The technology would be primed for sustained conflict and mobility.

But Canada hasn't invaded anyone, nor does it seem like there will ever be a need to -- so I question why our forces are being trained to be "soldiers". If the vast bulk of Canadian military deployments are on a Peacekeeping initiative, the individual soldier training should be focused on creating an army of Peacekeepers, not war oriented soldiers.

I could see splitting the Military into two forces: The Military and The Peacekeeping force. One aimed at traditional military practices, the other aimed at foreign policing.

[Azure]

Wait, the military doesn't rain for assault, capture and invasion techniques?

Right now, I'm think they're training for that, along with a MUCH bigger emphasis on urban warfare.

[GreenTeaFrapp]

Originally Posted by Knalus

Canadians are different from the typical american, yes, but you need to realize that most americans aren't your typical american, either. Californians are as different from Texans, as Newfoundlanders are from Floridians. The artificial differences between the different segments of our two countries are made up - mostly because Canadian politicians are really, really scared about the continuing existence of Canada. You can't tell me I'm more different from a Minnesotan than I am from a Quebecois - I've been to both, I'll tell you it's easy to tell which of these things is not like the others.

Contrary to popular belief when it comes to attitudes and values, the most conservative regions in Canada are far more like the most liberal regions in Canada then they are to anywhere in the US. Alberta is the most conservative province in Canada and it's far more liberal then the most liberal US state.

[CaptainCrunch]

Originally Posted by llama64

Actually, Foreign Policy has everything to do with the military. It is the instrument with which a nation defends or imposes it's will. Since a military is composed by soldiers, one would naturally assume that the soldier's training reflects the nation's intentions.

Sure, foreign policy can define the missions that are put in front of a military. But the militarys first and main mandate is domestic not foreign. the military is first and foremost required to defend the security of the nation that it serves.

Originally Posted by llama64

If Canada were an aggressive nation, our military would be training for assault, capture and invasion tactics. The technology would be primed for sustained conflict and mobility.

The military has always trained on this because assault, capture and invasion tactics can be classed as both offensive and defensive skill sets.

Originally Posted by llama64

But Canada hasn't invaded anyone, nor does it seem like there will ever be a need to -- so I question why our forces are being trained to be "soldiers". If the vast bulk of Canadian military deployments are on a Peacekeeping initiative, the individual soldier training should be focused on creating an army of Peacekeepers, not war oriented soldiers.

Isn't Canada invading regions of Afghanistan, didn't they invade areas of Bosnia. Didn't our jets strike against Iraq in the first Gulf War. Didn't Canada invade North Korea, Europe?

Because at the end of the day, the soldier requires the flexibility to be able to multi-role. peacekeeping is worthless without the capability for the peacekeeping force to be able to invade, assault and capture, there has to be the ability to back any UN mandate with muscle. The biggest problem with UN peacekeeping is that it intimidates no-one if they don't have the muscle of the ability to dictate the UN's will to create and enforce the peace. If that wasn't true then you could send 50 lawyers on peacekeeping missions and they could merely glower at the two warring sides.

Peacekeeping in a large extent needs soldiers that know how to be soldiers.

Originally Posted by llama64

I could see splitting the Military into two forces: The Military and The Peacekeeping force. One aimed at traditional military practices, the other aimed at foreign policing.

I've said previously that Canada could create a special battalion that trains outside of the standard military patterns that could be at the disposal of the UN for peacekeeping, but I'd prefer that the UN shoulders the costs of training and equipting it. But you'd still need to have military training and backing because when the crap hits the fan, you still want the ability to kill people and blow stuff up.

[DESS]

Originally Posted by Titan

You feel free to dismiss the opinion of a professional soldier. You feel qualified to state the primary function of a military without any facts or support for your position. You think you know the role of defence/deterrence is to stand in a line to be shot at at leisure.

I think I will listen to someone that has been there and been trained before you. People that think they know better just because they pay the taxes piss me off. Pick up a rifle and walk the wall or just say thank you, to misquote the line.

As I said you are free to have an opinion, no matter how misinfored it may be and inspite of what a professional tells you.

I guess I should spell this out to make it clear for you since my OP seems to have gone over your head. I propose that an army's primary role is to stand in a line and look menancing. I mean this in a figurative way. No country wants to be invaded, which is a key reason for building an army - defence/deterrence. Armies/countries like to display their power (eg North Korea's Nuclear testing) in a menacing way. I have a large army so don't invade/threaten me or I will kick your ass. I have a nuke so don't invade me or I'll drop da bomb on you. North Korea has the bomb so it is very unlikely anybody is going to invade them any time soon. They are standing in a line and looking menancing and it is deterring aggression towards them. Again, the primary purpose of a military, IMO.

The OKA example was a literal interpretation of the stand in a line and look menancing, but it was following the same global logic as above.

I didn't think I needed to cite sources for you on such a basic and obvious concept. And we certainly don't need a professional soldier to help us with that.

As for the opinion of a professional soldier, btw, bfd. I don't mean that as a disrespect to him, but I don't see how his opinion on matters such as these is any more valid than mine. I'm sure he knows a million things about battle strategy, use of fire arms, etc. that I don't have a clue about, but that isn't what we're talking about here.

In fact, if you've ever spent any amount of time talking to Americans in forums about the occupation of Iraq, the soldiers that have been there always have the most biased view of all. They'll say things like "we're doing a lot of good work out there" and "I've lost some good friends fighting for our freedom" etc. But what they miss a lot of the time is the broader issues, like the fact that they are a party to an unprovoked attack and occupation of a foreign country. I always take what soldiers say with a grain of salt.

[Knalus]

Originally Posted by GreenTeaFrapp

Contrary to popular belief when it comes to attitudes and values, the most conservative regions in Canada are far more like the most liberal regions in Canada then they are to anywhere in the US. Alberta is the most conservative province in Canada and it's far more liberal then the most liberal US state.

I've heard that quote before, and there is a bit of truth to that. I personally don't think that Alberta is more liberal than California or New York, but I understand where you are coming from. However, I would counter that argument with the argument that "liberal vs. conservative" is not the only way to gauge the character of a person. It is a very political way of gauging what a person is like, and it's definitely the less political ways that we are similar - more similar, I would suggest, than almost any two other nations on the planet. There are a lot of Canadians that claim we are very different from Americans, then stop by the McDonald's drive through on their way home to watch the latest episode of Heroes.

[GreenTeaFrapp]

Originally Posted by Knalus

I've heard that quote before, and there is a bit of truth to that. I personally don't think that Alberta is more liberal than California or New York, but I understand where you are coming from. However, I would counter that argument with the argument that "liberal vs. conservative" is not the only way to gauge the character of a person. It is a very political way of gauging what a person is like, and it's definitely the less political ways that we are similar - more similar, I would suggest, than almost any two other nations on the planet. There are a lot of Canadians that claim we are very different from Americans, then stop by the McDonald's drive through on their way home to watch the latest episode of Heroes.

Retail and entertainment do not define the values and attitude of a region. People around the world watch Heroes and eat at McDonald's. Canadian and American attitudes on things like health care, gun control, and religion are wildly divergent and getting more divergent as time goes on.

If you want to really understand how different Canada and the US are, read Fire and Ice by Michael Adams.

[jolinar of malkshor]

Originally Posted by Knalus

Have you lived in Calgary? Cause at least a few months ago, we had nowhere near enough workers, YES I would like all of them to come to Calgary. As many Mexicans as can come as well. The inflation in Calgary has been pretty rough these past 5 years - mostly due to the lack of workers in this country. In addition, due to the ageing of the boomers, we are soon (10 years) going to need all the workers we can possibly get our hands on.

Thanks tips, I am well aware of what Canada needs as far as foreign workers are concerned. Yes, we do need some, a controlled amount governed by the government and the ability to have them LEAVE when we no longer need them. We do not need 300 million potential workers from the US and another 110 million from Mexico, if that happened, you could kiss your way of life good by.

The POLITICIANS are far enough apart on those issues. Canadians are different from the typical american, yes, but you need to realize that most americans aren't your typical american, either. Californians are as different from Texans, as Newfoundlanders are from Floridians. The artificial differences between the different segments of our two countries are made up - mostly because Canadian politicians are really, really scared about the continuing existence of Canada. You can't tell me I'm more different from a Minnesotan than I am from a Quebecois - I've been to both, I'll tell you it's easy to tell which of these things is not like the others.

Ok, you go ahead and believe that.

Open the borders.

We need more control of our borders, not less.

[Knalus]

Originally Posted by GreenTeaFrapp

Retail and entertainment do not define the values and attitude of a region. People around the world watch Heroes and eat at McDonald's. Canadian and American attitudes on things like health care, gun control, and religion are wildly divergent and getting more divergent as time goes on.

If you want to really understand how different Canada and the US are, read Fire and Ice by Michael Adams.

Granted, retail does not define people - any more than politics do. I used to be one of those who bought in to the whole argument that Canadians are different from Americans, read the books and accepted the arguments. I even spent time in the states, and those differences were brought forward, and I made note of them, and agreed - for awhile.

Then I spent some time in a different part of the states, and noticed that what I had assumed was our "differences" really wasn't specific to Canada/US. Spent some more time in different parts of Canada, and noticed that the level of differences was right up there with the different parts of the States. Spent some time in NZ, and in Denmark and Germany, where I noticed things were both the same, and yet very, very different. I even lived in Germany for 3 months, spent 1 month in NZ. What I noticed? The intellectual arguments about what makes us different are true - but those arguments can be extended to many other places, and between the different portions of the States and Canada as well. Want to read another book that makes a different argument? ‘The Nine Nations of North America’ byJoel Garreau. I don't agree with everything he has to say, but he's on the right track. Add to this the fact that Canada as a nation is so uncohesive as to frequently have separatist leanings in various portions of the Country, you can't say we're different and that's that. Sure we're different, but we're just as different as they are.

[Thunderball]

Originally Posted by jolinar of malkshor

Thanks tips, I am well aware of what Canada needs as far as foreign workers are concerned. Yes, we do need some, a controlled amount governed by the government and the ability to have them LEAVE when we no longer need them. We do not need 300 million potential workers from the US and another 110 million from Mexico, if that happened, you could kiss your way of life good by.

This is the main reason we can't have a purely open border. However, we do need to make it easy for (Americans in particular) professionals to come here. We are critically short of doctors and nurses, let alone other professions like lawyers, accountants, etc. However, the existing hoops deter most from considering Canada.

However, I think the differences between Canada and the US are largely politically amplified in order to protect the local interests. The average Albertan thinks a lot different than the average Ontarian. Unions are a blessing there, versus a nuisance here. However, we make it work. Alberta is realistically a deep blue US state, but would not be the bluest. American attitudes on religion and gun control vary significantly state to state, as do attitudes on gay marriage, environmentalism, stem cell research and abortion. If you compare BC to Alabama, yeah, its about as different as you can get. Compare Alberta to Colorado or BC to Oregon, you get a very different picture. Hell, take the policy priorities of an upper class Calgarian and compare them to a lower class one. The difference is pretty staggering... staggering enough to be a different political culture itself.

Healthcare is the biggest difference in policy preference. However, the world recognizes both systems as failures, and of course, both countries boast a significant amount of reformers who want widespread change.

[Knalus]

Originally Posted by jolinar of malkshor

Yes, we do need some, a controlled amount governed by the government and the ability to have them LEAVE when we no longer need them. We do not need 300 million potential workers from the US and another 110 million from Mexico, if that happened, you could kiss your way of life good by.

Forcible removal? Sounds very unfair to me. I have a friend that is an American, who was forced to uproot his family from their life here in Canada because of the issues of taxation between the states and Canada - he was forced into exile in Alaska because of this. It wasn't fair to his family, to his company, to his children, nor to his friends. No one wanted them to leave. Was that because of people like you? Thanks for nothing. (Buy the way, no one could tell he was an American. Real different.) If say, you moved to Texas, would you like to be told by someone to move away, just cause you weren't born there? Even though someone from New York, well, he wasn't born there either, but he can stay, there's nothing we can do about that. Real fair. How about someone here from Newfoundland? Notice that they have also flooded the job market? How many people from Calgary are from elsewhere? My life is so horribly ruined by all those carpetbaggers. So nasty.

If there were 300 million people moving here from the states, there would be no one left in the states. If they don't want it, can I buy California? I heard it's nice there.

As for my way of life, From what I've seen, it would only go up if they moved here. Not only would I be able to build them all houses that they would buy, the price of things would go down, giving me both more buying power AND more money. Win-win. Really.

[MelBridgeman]

Originally Posted by Thunderball

This is the main reason we can't have a purely open border. However, we do need to make it easy for (Americans in particular) professionals to come here. We are critically short of doctors and nurses, let alone other professions like lawyers, accountants, etc. However, the existing hoops deter most from considering Canada.

I would imagine MONEY is what keeps american health care professionals from coming to canada and working

[Bring_Back_Shantz]

Originally Posted by Knalus

But Canada and the States are. Why do I need a passport to visit the states? Fear of outsiders? That's all a giant load of bull. It's all about control, and politics - most of which is unnecessary, inconvenient, and morally negative. Why should I have to deal with that kind of inconvenience because a bureaucrat needs to up his salary/make an excuse for what he's doing and another politician scared enough grandmas about the evil's of the outside world so he can get re-elected?

Call me idealistic, but I don't trust where this is going. The exact opposite of what you assumed I was thinking about. I'm more worried than hopeful of where these two countries are going.

There's a BIG differnece between keeping someone IN your country (a la Cold War Soviet Union), and keeping someone OUT of your country (a la every country in the world, since the invention of the country).

Needing a passport to cross the border into the US has nothing to do with the Canadian government wanting to keep people in the country, it is the US government wanting to keep undesirable people out of theirs.

And I wouldn't really call you idealistic over this post, I'd say it's more like paranoid.