T
Tenaciousle0
Guest
Canada has a small military, I can't find any specific numbers though
Ok, so the US is the most powerful military power on Earth right?
- Thread starter MMike
- Start date
Canada Military
Military branches: Canadian Forces (includes Land Forces Command or LC, Maritime Command or MC, Air Command or AC, Communications Command or CC, Training Command or TC), Royal Canadian Mounted Police (RCMP)
Military manpower - military age: 17 years of age
Military manpower - availability: males age 15-49: 8,325,084 (2001 est.)
Military manpower - fit for military service: males age 15-49: 7,114,851 (2001 est.)
Military manpower - reaching military age annually: males: 215,627 (2001 est.)
Military expenditures - dollar figure: $7.5 billion (FY00/01)
Military expenditures - percent of GDP: 1.3% (FY00/01)
United States Military
Military branches: Department of the Army, Department of the Navy (includes Marine Corps), Department of the Air Force
note: the Coast Guard is normally subordinate to the Department of Transportation, but in wartime reports to the Department of the Navy
Military manpower - military age: 18 years of age
Military manpower - availability: males age 15-49: 70,819,436 (2001 est.)
Military manpower - fit for military service: NA
Military manpower - reaching military age annually: males: 2,039,414 (2001 est.)
Military expenditures - dollar figure: $276.7 billion (FY99 est.)
Military expenditures - percent of GDP: 3.2% (FY99 est.)
Military branches: Canadian Forces (includes Land Forces Command or LC, Maritime Command or MC, Air Command or AC, Communications Command or CC, Training Command or TC), Royal Canadian Mounted Police (RCMP)
Military manpower - military age: 17 years of age
Military manpower - availability: males age 15-49: 8,325,084 (2001 est.)
Military manpower - fit for military service: males age 15-49: 7,114,851 (2001 est.)
Military manpower - reaching military age annually: males: 215,627 (2001 est.)
Military expenditures - dollar figure: $7.5 billion (FY00/01)
Military expenditures - percent of GDP: 1.3% (FY00/01)
United States Military
Military branches: Department of the Army, Department of the Navy (includes Marine Corps), Department of the Air Force
note: the Coast Guard is normally subordinate to the Department of Transportation, but in wartime reports to the Department of the Navy
Military manpower - military age: 18 years of age
Military manpower - availability: males age 15-49: 70,819,436 (2001 est.)
Military manpower - fit for military service: NA
Military manpower - reaching military age annually: males: 2,039,414 (2001 est.)
Military expenditures - dollar figure: $276.7 billion (FY99 est.)
Military expenditures - percent of GDP: 3.2% (FY99 est.)
I don't think this is an accurate statement, service men do have their specialties but they are not limited to them.
And... when did you guys get tanks and where did you get them from???
T
Tenaciousle0
Guest
Canada has less soldiers per square mile of territory than almost any other country, but no one wants Canada, so thats okay
China Military
Military branches: People's Liberation Army (PLA) - which includes Ground Forces, Navy (includes Marines and Naval Aviation), Air Force, Second Artillery Corps (the strategic missile force), People's Armed Police (internal security troops, nominally subordinate to Ministry of Public Security, but included by the Chinese as part of the "armed forces" and considered to be an adjunct to the PLA in wartime)
Military manpower - military age: 18 years of age
Military manpower - availability: males age 15-49: 366,306,353 (2001 est.)
Military manpower - fit for military service: males age 15-49: 200,886,946 (2001 est.)
Military manpower - reaching military age annually: males: 10,089,458 (2001 est.)
Military expenditures - dollar figure: $12.608 billion (FY99); note - China's real defense spending may be several times higher than the official figure because a number of significant items are funded elsewhere
Military expenditures - percent of GDP: 1.2% (FY99)
Iraq Military
Military branches: Army, Republican Guard, Navy, Air Force, Air Defense Force, Border Guard Force, Fedayeen Saddam
Military manpower - military age: 18 years of age
Military manpower - availability: males age 15-49: 5,902,215 (2001 est.)
Military manpower - fit for military service: males age 15-49: 3,301,880 (2001 est.)
Military manpower - reaching military age annually: males: 274,035 (2001 est.)
Military expenditures - dollar figure: $NA
Military expenditures - percent of GDP: NA%
Note: Military Manpower - fit for service denotes total number of men in that countrys population within the allowable age range. As opposed to actual number of enlisted personel.
Military branches: People's Liberation Army (PLA) - which includes Ground Forces, Navy (includes Marines and Naval Aviation), Air Force, Second Artillery Corps (the strategic missile force), People's Armed Police (internal security troops, nominally subordinate to Ministry of Public Security, but included by the Chinese as part of the "armed forces" and considered to be an adjunct to the PLA in wartime)
Military manpower - military age: 18 years of age
Military manpower - availability: males age 15-49: 366,306,353 (2001 est.)
Military manpower - fit for military service: males age 15-49: 200,886,946 (2001 est.)
Military manpower - reaching military age annually: males: 10,089,458 (2001 est.)
Military expenditures - dollar figure: $12.608 billion (FY99); note - China's real defense spending may be several times higher than the official figure because a number of significant items are funded elsewhere
Military expenditures - percent of GDP: 1.2% (FY99)
Iraq Military
Military branches: Army, Republican Guard, Navy, Air Force, Air Defense Force, Border Guard Force, Fedayeen Saddam
Military manpower - military age: 18 years of age
Military manpower - availability: males age 15-49: 5,902,215 (2001 est.)
Military manpower - fit for military service: males age 15-49: 3,301,880 (2001 est.)
Military manpower - reaching military age annually: males: 274,035 (2001 est.)
Military expenditures - dollar figure: $NA
Military expenditures - percent of GDP: NA%
Note: Military Manpower - fit for service denotes total number of men in that countrys population within the allowable age range. As opposed to actual number of enlisted personel.
T
Tenaciousle0
Guest
Alright I finally found it, Canada has approxomately(sp.?) 1,700,000 full time military personnel
approximately....
CANADA's military is not that big. from what i remember, our regular force is about 50 000 and reserve force is somewhat less, say around 30 000.
there are more service personnel in one US base than in the entire CANADIAN FORCES.
i see someone has been looking at the CIA website
CANADA's military is not that big. from what i remember, our regular force is about 50 000 and reserve force is somewhat less, say around 30 000.
there are more service personnel in one US base than in the entire CANADIAN FORCES.
i see someone has been looking at the CIA website
T
Tenaciousle0
Guest
Directly from the Canadian 1999 dod almanacOriginally posted by slein
approximately....
CANADA's military is not that big. from what i remember, our regular force is about 50 000 and reserve force is somewhat less, say around 30 000.
there are more service personnel in one US base than in the entire CANADIAN FORCES.
i see someone has been looking at the CIA website
ACTIVE DUTY
Officer 217,898
Enlisted 1,167,951
and I adjusted for post Sept 11 military inflation
On a side note: I love it when people who have a) never served, or b) are from other countries offer commentary on how our military is or should be run.
the CANADIAN FORCES (CF) had a strenght of 60 000 regular soldiers and about 15 000 reserve soldiers in 1998. i checked at www.dnd.ca and www.forces.ca.
i also know i am about ballpark cuz i used to be a soldier
i also know i am about ballpark cuz i used to be a soldier
...or when a) people make false assumptions or b) assume that our way is the correct way and anyone else that says something about it is talking out his butt.
i just love, dude. that's it, that's all.
the most impressive memory of the AMERICAN military was when the 82nd AIRBORNE jumped into DZ ANZIO at CFB PETAWAWA in prep for going to HAITI.
520 lawndarts jumping at dawn onto a fog covered DZ with only 15 casualties. it was f*ckin kewl.
the least impressive memory was on a joint exercise at CFB WAINWRIGHT. we lost a track on our M113, and had to put that f*cker back on. a few days later, we drove passed a similar US vehicle, with its track off. dudes were just waiting around for recovery.... my guess is that they were in exercise mode.
but hey, i know nuthin.
the most impressive memory of the AMERICAN military was when the 82nd AIRBORNE jumped into DZ ANZIO at CFB PETAWAWA in prep for going to HAITI.
520 lawndarts jumping at dawn onto a fog covered DZ with only 15 casualties. it was f*ckin kewl.
the least impressive memory was on a joint exercise at CFB WAINWRIGHT. we lost a track on our M113, and had to put that f*cker back on. a few days later, we drove passed a similar US vehicle, with its track off. dudes were just waiting around for recovery.... my guess is that they were in exercise mode.
but hey, i know nuthin.
How high were they jumping from?
A guy that worked for me in the CG was ex-Army. When he dropped into Panama it was from 1000'AGL in the dark. He said the whole drop took about 10 seconds.
i think it was between 800 to 1000 feet. basically they wouldn't have much time to deploy their reserve chute.
jump - jab - check chute
the kewl thing about it you saw the planes, but you couldn't see the troopers. they landed, put up something called steinbrenner (or to that effect) flags, org'ed and they attached the building (mock control tower).
it was funny (despite the casualties) because everyone was running around calling each other sir - their ranks on their collars were covered by their webbing.
yep... then they were stuck on base for a few days because one of one or three of the planes broke down.
jump - jab - check chute
the kewl thing about it you saw the planes, but you couldn't see the troopers. they landed, put up something called steinbrenner (or to that effect) flags, org'ed and they attached the building (mock control tower).
it was funny (despite the casualties) because everyone was running around calling each other sir - their ranks on their collars were covered by their webbing.
yep... then they were stuck on base for a few days because one of one or three of the planes broke down.
T
Tenaciousle0
Guest
Originally posted by aragorn
Yup. We get tons of Canadians here that are actually part time US residents. I've spoken to many of them and they all say if you have a serious health issue in Canada, you're screwed. Rediculously long wating periods. Some have died with out ever being seen by a doctor. These are older people who have lived in the "system" all their lives. Most of them have US insurance policies and see US doctors. In theory, socialism sounds great, but in practice..... (slipping into asbestos suit
T
Tenaciousle0
Guest
I'll finish for you
Originally posted by zibbler
Yup. We get tons of Canadians here that are actually part time US residents. I've spoken to many of them and they all say if you have a serious health issue in Canada, you're screwed. Rediculously long wating periods. Some have died with out ever being seen by a doctor. These are older people who have lived in the "system" all their lives. Most of them have US insurance policies and see US doctors. In theory, socialism sounds great, but in practice..... IT'S CRAP (slipping into asbestos suit
C'mon DT you're smarter than that. The US military exists to protect US interests only. Why did the US have to be dragged into two world wars?
East Timor?
Chechnya?
Yugoslavia?
That's it though. Who's gonna invade Canada?Originally posted by -BB-
Mmike... IMO, the only reason that a lot of these other countries (ie Canada) CAN afford to spend money on things besides teh millitary is because the US DOES. If anyone ever gets attacked (besides Iraq, Syria, Iran, and a few others...)
WHO IS GONNA COME BAIL THEM OUT?
Canada?
Nope... the US.
(yes, I know Canada does lend support to some of the UN multi national forces, but not much)
Does this make any of it "right" or "wrong"
Na. Probably not.
Some people spend money on Bikes... some on clothes and electornics... and some on BEER.
And why are the US so choosy about who they defend? And from whom?
Are you sure about that? There are many countries I would choose before the US if I was poor.
Have you lived and experienced these cultures?
Yep. At that time they hated us much more than you. You've done a remarkable job in overhauling us since 1945.
Anybody care to guess the main reason that Socialism has (do far at least) struggled to work as a long term idealogy?Originally posted by zibbler
Yup. We get tons of Canadians here that are actually part time US residents. I've spoken to many of them and they all say if you have a serious health issue in Canada, you're screwed. Rediculously long wating periods. Some have died with out ever being seen by a doctor. These are older people who have lived in the "system" all their lives. Most of them have US insurance policies and see US doctors. In theory, socialism sounds great, but in practice..... (slipping into asbestos suit
(You know it is by no means cut and dried to say that socialism has failed. First we should define socialism and its aims and compare them to the aims of capitalism. The we should but today's societies in context with the era of the evolution of socialism.)
what?! have you been drinking? i can't vouch for the army, navy or air force but in the Marines one of our most proud traditions/training ideals is that "every Marine is a rifleman". In boot camp you are trained as a basic infantryman FIRST, your actual occupational specialty is just what you do when your not shooting things. Every Marine, Soldier, Sailor and Airman is tasked with learning the job of the next person and training others in what they do so that no matter who goes down, the mission can still be accomplished.
the crosstraining in the canadian military is so high because you guys have plenty of time to play "show and tell" while we're playing "catch the bullet" for some country that needs help.
thank you captain obvious! of course the us military exists to protect it's own interests.......but those interest usually involve keeping the economy of flailing countries afloat via monetary support or military backbone. it's hard for other countries to understand why we do some of the things we do; call it vision or an ideal but it seems to be lacking in most monarchial governments.
Nope. Every ER that is run by the county has a sign posted clearly stating that they cannot refuse to treat you if you can't pay. I'm sure private hospitals are different. I don't have insurance, and when my son broke his hand, they treated him. Granted, I had to pay for it out of my pocket - at $10.00 per month. Big whoop. That won't break my bank, I'm not paying interest on it, and they're happy I'm even paying my bill.
Clarification on US health insurance, (in Washington state anyway).
No matter how much money you have, you cannot buy full coverage unless you are with a group plan ie: your employer.
We were just looking into this. Up until the time Brenda started working, wew were on state assisted health insurance. It was I dunno....a bit over $100/mo for full coverage. Cool!
But we were looking at private insurance because Brenda was considering a job that offered no benefits. We were shocked to find that no matter how much money you have you could find anything that would pay more than 80% coverage and with anywhere from $500 to $1000 deductible. So what do you do if you're in a car accident and are presented with a $75000 bill?
Yes, (unlike most of the people here) will admit that my country has some problems. The Canadian system has flaws. But you CANNOT walk around sayng the US system is much better on the whole. If you have good insurance, then yes treatment likely is more prompt. (Not necessarily any more competant).
But I have been in situations here where I've seen people not go to the doctor because "they can't afford insurance". That is absolutely ridiculous. They can't afford to be healthy. THINK about that. That is WRONG. And it DOES happen.
No matter how much money you have, you cannot buy full coverage unless you are with a group plan ie: your employer.
We were just looking into this. Up until the time Brenda started working, wew were on state assisted health insurance. It was I dunno....a bit over $100/mo for full coverage. Cool!
But we were looking at private insurance because Brenda was considering a job that offered no benefits. We were shocked to find that no matter how much money you have you could find anything that would pay more than 80% coverage and with anywhere from $500 to $1000 deductible. So what do you do if you're in a car accident and are presented with a $75000 bill?
Yes, (unlike most of the people here) will admit that my country has some problems. The Canadian system has flaws. But you CANNOT walk around sayng the US system is much better on the whole. If you have good insurance, then yes treatment likely is more prompt. (Not necessarily any more competant).
But I have been in situations here where I've seen people not go to the doctor because "they can't afford insurance". That is absolutely ridiculous. They can't afford to be healthy. THINK about that. That is WRONG. And it DOES happen.
so basicly you're saying that america want to make money out of a war
Bravo! I was JUST thinking the same thing!
Very true. If there is still anyone out there who believes that you simply *can't* get treatment if you have no money, come spend a day or two at the hospital my wife works at. It's one of the larger hospitals in Virginia, and a HUGE amount of the people admitted there, are admitted THERE specifically BECAUSE they can't pay.
So you and I agree that the US government is motivated by self-interest and not the good of all?
And in case you forget the US subsidised the USSR to the tume of millions of dollars whilst the USSR were fighting against US-supplied freedom fighters in Afghanistan. That would appear to be a clear case of self-defeating conflict of interest but in fact was exactly what was desired, a war that neither side were able to win. All in the name of US self interest.
But you all knew that already yes?
Keeping the economy of other countries afloat via military/economic assistance is not at all the same thing as saying 'making money from a war.' For instance, what if Japan was attacked by someone larger than them, who threatened to blow them off the face of the globe? I will be the first to admit that I do NOT know much about economics...but I DO know that THEIR economy is pretty important to our own, considering all the electronics/vehicles and the like we import from them. If we didn't assist them, I believe that would have a HUGE economic impact on our country. (Obviously that's probably not the only way in which we benefit from them having a stable countr/economy. Just an example.)
From that perspective, you could say that supporting other countries would prevent us from losing too much money (not counting money used to actually employ the methods of military/economic assistance) , but again, that's still not the same as saying we assist them so we can make money. I don't think we got involved in Chechnya or Yugoslavia to make the bucks; I don't think Tubby was trying to imply that either. (And if I'm dead wrong, I know no one will hesitate to flame me either.
)
No offense intended, but I don't really know of too many nations/countries that ONLY think about the 'good of all' and NEVER give any thought to their own self-interests. I don't pretend to know everything, but I'm willing to bet that a lot of what the US does overseas falls into both categories somewhat. Obviously this is not always the case, however.
By the way...I think a lot of people simply assume that since the US military, ultimately, is under the command of the US government, that all military members simply follow along with everything the government wants to do, and never object to anything, or that they all blindly believe that our government is always right and perfect. Officially, I have to support the government of the United States. But that doesn't take away my rights as a citizen, and I'll be the first to say I have a LOT of problems with different aspects of the government, especially being a Christian.
No offence taken. UK policy is no better and if we had such a powerful economy & military it might be a lot worse. Sometimes I cannot work out whether our politicians are incredibly stupid or incredibly smart. I tend to think their abilities are overrated and it's probably the former.
I know there's INTELLIGENT politicians out there...however, it's in discussions like this that I like to point out that there's a HUGE distinction between intelligence and WISDOM.
Obviously loads of politicians are lacking in the latter of the two.
Thank you!
But to read some of the other posts here, you swear that the entire US gov't and miltary should be up for sainthood.
I dunno. I would just be satisfied to hear a few of the people here just admit that their gov't and military weren't perfect. No-one....(ok maybe one person), thinks that the US has never done any good for the world. But it's pretty freaking naive to spout off that they ONLY do good....and are the ONLY ONES IN THE WORLD who have done good. That gets pretty tiresome and frustrating for those in the rest of the world.
To follow True's "I love it when people ignorant of a particular subject making sweeping statements about it"....it will never cease to amuse me how some people say that this is the greatest country to live in, when this is the ONLY country they've ever lived in. So then how would you know?
But to read some of the other posts here, you swear that the entire US gov't and miltary should be up for sainthood.
I dunno. I would just be satisfied to hear a few of the people here just admit that their gov't and military weren't perfect. No-one....(ok maybe one person), thinks that the US has never done any good for the world. But it's pretty freaking naive to spout off that they ONLY do good....and are the ONLY ONES IN THE WORLD who have done good. That gets pretty tiresome and frustrating for those in the rest of the world.
To follow True's "I love it when people ignorant of a particular subject making sweeping statements about it"....it will never cease to amuse me how some people say that this is the greatest country to live in, when this is the ONLY country they've ever lived in. So then how would you know?
T
Tenaciousle0
Guest
To quote Jim Trafficant, "I love the country, but I hate the government."
fourgivin1 said it well. i don't know of any country who's government is completely concerned about the good of all, that would defeat the purpose of government. the people elect officials to oversee the management of the country, thus any outside interest that would affect the economy or welfare of it's citizens falls into the governments area of concern. for instance, the gulf war was over who controlled the oil, can you imagine if saddam had gained control over the oil wells of the saudi region! we'd all be paying the price for that. now, we're considering going back over there, not for oil this time but for our own safety. those that believe it's none of our business to be over there will soon realize that if we don't make it our business, saddam will but it will be after much loss has occurred.
sorry, that was a bit off topic...anyway....
my point is, no governmental action will ever be totally non-self serving but that doesn't mean that it's always totally selfish.
Well put
Can I argue that I have not gained much from my enlistment in the military? Of course not. Again, the military and the government are two separate (although hugely intertwined) entities. And whatever other problems I have with the military (and they do exist), it has gained me a lot to be in the military, from professional and professional points of view. If I ever elect the military for sainthood it will be based on that.
(I'm obviously kidding.)I love being in the military, and I love my country, but again, I'll be the first to admit that I have problems with a lot of what the government does. But being an American citizen doesn't automatically mean I am brainwashed into believing my gov't can do no wrong. I just don't spend all my time trying to be subversive.