[Akhenaten]

$1:

Like I said you have to go back to when Pearson won the Nobel Prize.

Well we can both agree he was awesome. He was. But this part...

$1:

I also said our respect or at least our influence waned as our peacekeeping deployments did.

Ah c'mon now. First off our deployments didn't wane, the missions waned and not because we were bad at them but because peacekeeeping missions deserve a bad name. When they 'work' they work onlyl 10% of the time and with about 10% effectiveness. I remember last time I had this conversation someone brought up Bosnia and it was everything I could do not to insult the person by laughing at them. Bosnia was NOT a peacekeeping mission -- or at least the peacekeeping component failed miserably. No, with the biggest NATO air bombing campaign before or since Bosnia was definately a peace making campaign. Probably why it worked.

Unfortunately the word 'peacekeeping' has a good brand name witht he word peace in there but more often than not it's a disaster waiting to happen.

NOW IN LESTERs time there was still hope. In fact during the Cold War there was always hope for peacekeeping.But to your point that we participated in UN peacekeeping and that gave us recognition and respect. Okay well Fuji has contributed to more missions than us and more money per capita than us to just about every peacekeeping mission since 1970.

....and we have about as much 'influence' as Fuji has.

[commanderkai]

DerbyX DerbyX:

Like I said you have to go back to when Pearson won the Nobel Prize. I also said our respect or at least our influence waned as our peacekeeping deployments did.

Pearson, once again, won a Nobel Prize when NOT only we were conducting Peacekeeping efforts, but also when we had a military force to back up peacekeeping efforts. Peacekeeping efforts by Canada in the 90s show how little peacekeeping achieves if you don't have hard, military power.

[DerbyX]

EyeBrock EyeBrock:

Nobel peace prize. Bollocks, didn't Yasser Arafat win one?

The Aussies not a regional power? You need to do some reading Derby.

The Aussies have quite the military compared to us.Their defence budget is about the same size.

The Aussies are a regional power. You might be up to date on soft power but I’m current with real power and the lack of it.

They have air defence network that is effective and stand-alone in the region and is backed up with 100 combat aircraft.
They have just ordered the F18 E/F Super Hornet as a stop gap to replace their aging F18A’s. they also have 100 F35 JSF on order. The RAAF has strategic airflift capability provided by C17’s and has a large fleet of tac-lift such as the C130 and assorted heli-lift.


They have an amphibious assault capability with large hovercrafts and assault ships.
A 56 ship navy. They have submarines (six of them) that actually work.

The Army has 3 Armoured Brigades of regular troops, plus 6 Brigades of reserves.

They also have two regular army commando regiments plus the Australian Special Air Service Regiment.

The Aussies have recently deployed to East Timor (where they kicked arse), they fought in Iraq and have SF elements in Afghanistan. They were also heavily involved in relief efforts during the 2005 Tsunami where their amphibious landing ships and large hovercrafts proved very useful.

They have an active role in providing military assistance in Papua New Guinea and the Solomon’s and they recently assisted Indonesia in the earthquakes/tsunami relief effort.

They also have a naval task force deployed around Somalia.

I’d say they were a regional power.

http://www.defence.gov.au/index.cfm

Well first off just because you don't respect a Nobel prize doesn't mean others don't. You seem to think that just because you don't respect peacekeeping nobody does or that Canada hasn't garnered respect around the world through peaceful means. I'd say we have lots.

As for the Aussie armed forces they aren't any better then ours, at least according to what you guys tell us anyway.

They deployed to East Timor yes but it was INTERFET which was a peacekeeping force and mission. They did exactly what peacekeeping was about and it was UN sponsored.

That kinda flies in the face of your opinion about peacekeeping not to mention the UN but then again I don't think much of the UN either.

Comparing forces with the Aussies is hardly the point because respect for them isn't confined to military efforts.

I don't think we will agree much on this. Canada isn't going to gain respect in the world through a larger military or by sending them out on the type of missions you seem to be touting. We certainly won't be gaining it in any of the European countries seeing as they have all become pussy liberal socialist wannabees right?

[EyeBrock]

Derby, you are not getting this at all are you?

[DerbyX]

Akhenaten Akhenaten:

$1:

Like I said you have to go back to when Pearson won the Nobel Prize.

Well we can both agree he was awesome. He was. But this part...

$1:

I also said our respect or at least our influence waned as our peacekeeping deployments did.

Ah c'mon now. First off our deployments didn't wane, the missions waned and not because we were bad at them but because peacekeeeping missions deserve a bad name. When they 'work' they work onlyl 10% of the time and with about 10% effectiveness. I remember last time I had this conversation someone brought up Bosnia and it was everything I could do not to insult the person by laughing at them. Bosnia was NOT a peacekeeping mission -- or at least the peacekeeping component failed miserably. No, with the biggest NATO air bombing campaign before or since Bosnia was definately a peace making campaign. Probably why it worked.

Unfortunately the word 'peacekeeping' has a good brand name witht he word peace in there but more often than not it's a disaster waiting to happen.

NOW IN LESTERs time there was still hope. In fact during the Cold War there was always hope for peacekeeping.But to your point that we participated in UN peacekeeping and that gave us recognition and respect. Okay well Fuji has contributed to more missions than us and more money per capita than us to just about every peacekeeping mission since 1970.

....and we have about as much 'influence' as Fuji has.

Seeing as how I am now debating 6 different people I'm not going to respond as completely as I should.

Force does not equal respect and peace keeping doesn't mean force is ruled out. We may have used force in the Balkans but we didn't invade Serbia did we and occupy them despite the atrocities.

In one breathe you say our deployments didn't wane and in another you say Fuji is doing more then us.

Our respect and influence in the world isn't bonded to our military.

[Bacardi4206]

IMO I think having the military muscle generates respect, the only countries that ever got taken seriously were the ones with those military muscle. Regarding those that flex it. Obviously going around the world with a rifle shooting people up will not generate respect. However the countries that can kick your ass or have nukes generally are the ones taken more seriously and respected in the international community.

I mean, Canada before we got into Afghanistan did nothing but peace keeping missions after peace keeping missions. While we generated good relations with people because we were not warmongers and were known as the 'nice country'. We still diddn't generate much respect for it. If anything it denounced our military as a whole. Nobody respected the Canadian Military as a fighting force. They just laughed at it as nothing but poorly funded soldiers of peace.

The only time in our history that we actually generated a ton of respect and people took us very seriously was WW1-WW2 where Canada was a top military power. We can help our allies all we want in Afghanistan and whatever war we get into. We can kick complete ass but we will not get respect as long as we cannot even remotely defend our own country and rely on the U.S. Military for the defense of Canada.

NATO wants Canada to stay in Afghanistan because while we are good soldiers, we also have tons of peace keeping experience and the only way to win the war in Afghanistan is using a softer touch to win the support of the Afghanistan people. A soft touch Canadian troops can posses if needed. American troops can too but not so much as there training trains them to be pure fighting machines. Not soldier diplomats. They are adopting our Afghanistan strategies. In a real war though, Canada would not be as respected for there opinion as we don't have the military to take part in a full scale real war.

Say what you will but the international community respects peace, but only listens to the opinion of those with the muscle.

[DerbyX]

EyeBrock EyeBrock:

Derby, you are not getting this at all are you?

We disagree. You keep claiming that the only way to gain respect is through threats of violence. You claim peacekeeping is a myth then quote an successful Australian peacekeeping mission as proof of their respect and military prowess.

I'm understanding everything. Canada will not win respect by threatening other countries with violence any more then a bully in high school earns respect.

[2Cdo]

Bacardi4206 Bacardi4206:

IMO I think having the military muscle generates respect, the only countries that ever got taken seriously were the ones with those military muscle. Regarding those that flex it. Obviously going around the world with a rifle shooting people up will not generate respect. However the countries that can kick your ass or have nukes generally are the ones taken more seriously and respected in the international community.

I mean, Canada before we got into Afghanistan did nothing but peace keeping missions after peace keeping missions. While we generated good relations with people because we were not warmongers and were known as the 'nice country'. We still diddn't generate much respect for it. If anything it denounced our military as a whole. Nobody respected the Canadian Military as a fighting force. They just laughed at it as nothing but poorly funded soldiers of peace.

The only time in our history that we actually generated a ton of respect and people took us very seriously was WW1-WW2 where Canada was a top military power. We can help our allies all we want in Afghanistan and whatever war we get into. We can kick complete ass but we will not get respect as long as we cannot even remotely defend our own country and rely on the U.S. Military for the defense of Canada.

NATO wants Canada to stay in Afghanistan because while we are good soldiers, we also have tons of peace keeping experience and the only way to win the war in Afghanistan is using a softer touch to win the support of the Afghanistan people. A soft touch Canadian troops can posses if needed. American troops can too but not so much as there training trains them to be pure fighting machines. Not soldier diplomats. They are adopting our Afghanistan strategies. In a real war though, Canada would not be as respected for there opinion as we don't have the military to take part in a full scale real war.

Say what you will but the international community respects peace, but only listens to the opinion of those with the muscle.

Please stop talking about differences in training between Canada and the US because every time you do, you reveal that you don't have a clue about our training, let alone our allies.

[Akhenaten]

$1:

In one breathe you say our deployments didn't wane and in another you say Fuji is doing more then us.

Yeah...?
Those statements are not mutually exclusive.

[EyeBrock]

DerbyX DerbyX:

EyeBrock EyeBrock:

Derby, you are not getting this at all are you?

We disagree. You keep claiming that the only way to gain respect is through threats of violence. You claim peacekeeping is a myth then quote an successful Australian peacekeeping mission as proof of their respect and military prowess.

I'm understanding everything. Canada will not win respect by threatening other countries with violence any more then a bully in high school earns respect.

No, I claim that real respect is backed up with power.

And on East Timor,

Aussies projected power in the region, them being a ‘regional power’.

The Australian Army unit deployed there is called “Timor Leste Battle Group VI”

Very peace-keepingy eh?

No blue helmets there, just Armored Infantry keeping the bad guys away.

I’m sure the Bangladeshi UN Peace-keepers would have done a great job too.

This 'aint high-school in a warm-fuzzy western democracy. This is the real world.

[EyeBrock]

2Cdo 2Cdo:

Bacardi4206 Bacardi4206:

IMO I think having the military muscle generates respect, the only countries that ever got taken seriously were the ones with those military muscle. Regarding those that flex it. Obviously going around the world with a rifle shooting people up will not generate respect. However the countries that can kick your ass or have nukes generally are the ones taken more seriously and respected in the international community.

I mean, Canada before we got into Afghanistan did nothing but peace keeping missions after peace keeping missions. While we generated good relations with people because we were not warmongers and were known as the 'nice country'. We still diddn't generate much respect for it. If anything it denounced our military as a whole. Nobody respected the Canadian Military as a fighting force. They just laughed at it as nothing but poorly funded soldiers of peace.

The only time in our history that we actually generated a ton of respect and people took us very seriously was WW1-WW2 where Canada was a top military power. We can help our allies all we want in Afghanistan and whatever war we get into. We can kick complete ass but we will not get respect as long as we cannot even remotely defend our own country and rely on the U.S. Military for the defense of Canada.

NATO wants Canada to stay in Afghanistan because while we are good soldiers, we also have tons of peace keeping experience and the only way to win the war in Afghanistan is using a softer touch to win the support of the Afghanistan people. A soft touch Canadian troops can posses if needed. American troops can too but not so much as there training trains them to be pure fighting machines. Not soldier diplomats. They are adopting our Afghanistan strategies. In a real war though, Canada would not be as respected for there opinion as we don't have the military to take part in a full scale real war.

Say what you will but the international community respects peace, but only listens to the opinion of those with the muscle.

Please stop talking about differences in training between Canada and the US because every time you do, you reveal that you don't have a clue about our training, let alone our allies.

Yea, he wasn't too sure about Germany being in NATO either. He also thinks the French Forces in Afghanistan are kick-ass as he saw a youtube video on them.

Not a credible poster on these threads.

[DerbyX]

EyeBrock EyeBrock:

No, I claim that real respect is backed up with power.

And on East Timor,

Aussies projected power in the region, them being a ‘regional power’.

The Australian Army unit deployed there is called “Timor Leste Battle Group VI”

Very peace-keepingy eh?

No blue helmets there, just Armored Infantry keeping the bad guys away.

I’m sure the Bangladeshi UN Peace-keepers would have done a great job too.

This 'aint high-school in a warm-fuzzy western democracy. This is the real world.

First off peacekeeping doesn't mean force isn't being used or won't be used. It never did.

Do you respect North Korea because they have a large military? China? The idea you espouse is exactly the reason countries like Iran want the bomb. They want the respect and if that's the benchmark for respect then more power to them and anybody else building a weapons program.

[Akhenaten]

$1:

Do you respect North Korea because they have a large military? China?

When China uses it's large military influence to lay presure on North Korea, yes.

[EyeBrock]

No but because the North Korea's, Iran's and China's of the world are there is why why have to maintain an effective military.

I would rather us spend all the defence budget on more hospitals or a super high speed rail link across the country, really I would.

But because there will always be the arse-hole dictator or the off-side repressive regime, we have to waste resources in having a viable defence. Otherwise these guys will just push us to one side.

[gonavy47]

DerbyX DerbyX:

Akhenaten Akhenaten:

$1:

hardly counters the fact that back then Canada did have respect and influence

When was this? The only time we ever had the illusion of respect or influence to my memory was whenever we were on board with other more influential nations towards some common goal (South Africa for example). We in turn were able our name out there but to my mind there is a void of international issues we ever spearheaded that ever got us any respect or influence. Rwanda was a good example. We screamed over and over again about this and the UN dismissed us and decided they couldn't determine if what they were looking at was a genocide or not. If other muchmore influential nations were making the same noise AND willing to put up the troops we couldn't they would've possessed much more influence on the matter.

The only influence there is is money, so the only time we're ever influential is when it involves a people or state who need our money more than someone elses.

Like I said you have to go back to when Pearson won the Nobel Prize. I also said our respect or at least our influence waned as our peacekeeping deployments did. Our respect around the world is more a question of what we didn't do as much as what we did.

Regardless we aren't gaining in respect under Harper and we won't be gaining in respect in proportion to a larger military. Your examples pretty much state the same thing.

AND our peacekeeping deployments waned because of the liberal policy of having a weak military!!! You just contradicted your whole argument about not having a strong military.