I'm in the canadian military now and was in afghanistan in 2006. I also talked with many different militaries well I was there and most of the nations would love to be in the canadian army instead of there own. That was also some of the US guys. But the only people I ever heard say anything bad about the US was the Afghan's. Also most of them at the time didn't want any of us there anyway.

well, i think i would go with this one.

On a more serious note, it might not make much sense strategically for Canada to spend the resources on a larger military force.  Same with Japan, and much of western Europe.

The reason is the US -- at least for the moment, all of these countries know that the US depends on them economically, and can therefore be depended on to defend them from a more direct attack.  All have a significant ability to defend themselves as well (except Japan -- but that is due to treaty dating to WWII I believe), but none have to carry quite the expense that they would if the US wasn't spending better than half of the world's expenditures.  These countries are better off spending their tax dollars on all the economic and social causes they are able to fund.

That said, times are changing.  The US is broke, and its policy is breaking increasingly from that of other western countries.  The EU and China are emerging as major world powers equal to the US, and all three factions are beginning to compete for the same resources.  Russia is also recovering, and as raw material prices rise, their economic power can only increase.  The end result, I think, is that 50 years from now we see a three or four poled power structure -- depending on how powerful Russia becomes, whether it allies with the EU, and whether the US can maintain its status as a world power.  All of these changes point to increased military expenses on the part of non-US G8 countries.

I think a major world war is unlikely, simply because in today's world it is very difficult to profit from one -- the resource expenditures involved with taking over the world would simply never pay for themselves.  Destructive power is simply too cheap now.  Maintaining a stable stalemate, though, is going to be a required to keep the peace, and unfortunately that means building militaries we hope never get used.

Funny that the thread's about Canada's military, but somehow 3/4 of the posts are about the US military and Costa Rica.

Canadian Bacon...

Canada dont need a big miltary becuase no one hates them. Canada and many Europeon Nations try to negiote peace and make things happen throught politcal agendas. Amercia on the otherhand, fight countries becuase of many reasons including bringing demcarcy to that country. Amercia has been aorund 250 years or so, and they invade countries to bring democracy when they have been AROUND 2000 YEARS etc.

Invade this, Invade that, 'what? osama bin laden is located in the north pole, guarded by santa claus and his elves? invade the fuckers!'

Canada dont need a a big miltary becuase if someone attacks canada, The British Commonwealth of Nations and the French Commonwelath (dont know there name) will be there to help them out. 

The fact is Amercia is playing the bully because of there big miltary, but they may have the best equipment, more troops and more locations for there army to prepare for war in the world. But, compared to the birtish army, our more hardened and more better trainined soilders  can whoop ass just as good.

Let Amercia start the wars, Let the Europeons and Candians negiote for peace, we aint the ones who going to be wiped out by china and russia lol.

GOD SAVE THE QUEEN!

[_]-BlackHawk

He, with all the laws that changed in my country in the last years i can feel your pain. Did you know the Bundeswehr was only allowed for national defence by law? Well they changed that law recently. I think we had that law for a good reason. I am glad you feel the same way.

Indeed. And the worst part is, a lot of them don't know it.

Synn if your talking about the US Military you better throw up some proof of those claims. I dont know where you got your information. But murderers and rapists arent tolerated. I went to Iraq, didnt have to murder anyone, and surely never raped or witnessed a rape. We did our best to respect the people of Iraq, ensure security and further the building of their infrastructure so we could finally pull out and fully hand over the nation back to its rightful owners.

People can talk all the trash they want. But in the last 50 years, I bet not one of these asshats can name the US conquering a country and not handing it back to its people. This isnt Roman times, the US isnt going to war just to lay claim to land. If your going to take an isolated incident and apply it to the whole your a complete idiot. I dont call every person living in the ghetto a thug or drug dealer. Cause Im not stupid enough to believe that shit can apply to everyone.

The Persian Gulf War.

And I love how you appearently think that two instances of soldiers disobeying orders makes the military "full of" criminals. I'm sure their are some general statistics out there, but they are probably to low for your claims even if the majority of them go unreported.

I'm not trusting that first report - it seems to be trying to push the idea of "Jewish Pornographers" being involved somehow.  That, and it is no official or trusted news site that I know of.

Although, that said, don't make me mention Vietnam.

Okay, end of OT.  The problem with Canada's military, or at least the Navy, is that you have two oceans, miles away from each other, to look out accross and police and no way to quickly transfer forces from one to the other.  So really, you could probably do with a bigger Navy, if only to police the valuable shipping lane to the north when it defrosts, same with the Air Force.  As for the army?  Probably not worth maintaing more than 100,000 personell.  Potential enemies have to either be the UK & Europe (not likely), Africa (even less likely), the US (Pfft!) or Russia (Presuming the landing craft don't all rust and sink on the way there) or they have to go through one of those countries to get there, so it ain't likely an Army will be much use for homeland defence.

Final point is, of course, any country wanting to attack Canada would most likely have come to blows with the US due to ideological similarites (don't the US & Canada have a mutual defence agreement, like the US & UK) and tbh, who would be attacked first?  The large, icy country full of polar bears, or the slightly smaller, climatically varied country with 300 million people and a very large chunk of world manufacturing?  See my point?

No... our (great ) U.S. of A. goes to war to "lay claim" to a 'way of life' and a 'political agenda'.

Is it that much different, in the long run?

That depends entirely on how you define 'conquer'.

Main Entry: con·quer
Pronunciation: \ˈkäŋ-kər\
Function: verb
Inflected Form(s): con·quered; con·quer·ing \-k(ə-)riŋ\
Etymology: Middle English, to acquire, conquer, from Anglo-French conquerre, from Vulgar Latin *conquaerere, alteration of Latin conquirere to search for, collect, from com- + quaerere to ask, search
Date: 14th century

transitive verb
1 : to gain or acquire by force of arms : subjugate <conquer territory>
2 : to overcome by force of arms : vanquish <conquered the enemy>
3 : to gain mastery over or win by overcoming obstacles or opposition <conquered the mountain>
4 : to overcome by mental or moral power : surmount <conquered her fear>
intransitive verb

: to be victorious

With the U.S.A., it seems more by way of defs 3 and 4.

It is more about converting, than destroying.

And we are seeing this same type of thing being used (in a different way) on the American peoples by the recent  administrations.

It is always better to conquer by subterfuge, than by violent conflict.