Sorry for my absence
sorry boys I was down with network issues Im back.
and happy to say that there are ways other than nukes
but of those boycott or bribe are our current fav's
we are able to send small contingents overseas
but by way of example our internaitonal influence
wouldnt back argentina out of the falklands
or many more recent examples.
albeit I recognize the need for defence and for self control on
military spending I also recognize a need for a seperate
offensive force capability
as Sun Tzu observed in peacetime a wise man keeps his
sword by his side. How long do you think theyll give us
to gear up before the next big one is over.
and I defy anybody on this forum to say it cant happen
the world is full of small brushfires now.
It can happen, and almost inevitably will someday
although not to soon I hope.
How thin are you going to spread those guys in defense of the worlds second largest nation geographically after all for the size of the place
70,000 is almost a credible size for an insurgency. but a national defence?
standing forces have traditionally been limited in peacetime to what is necessary to complete sovreignty patrols and keep our claim to all this.
the reason we would need a seperate offensive capability is that if you have to drain your defenses to make an attack youve given the game to
any able enemy.
Oh but canada doesnt have any enemies.
yeah right!
all nations are self serving in the event. the whole idea is to make
it advantageous enough to make being part of a cooperative world community the best choice for them in there own opinion.
I like the british example in aden.
it was won there with vetrinarians and doctors and agricultural consultants
and well drilling, at which point the leadership was having a terrible time
convincing there people of British malfesance
MM
Ok im done now!
|