hee hee - this sounds like lots of fun

Training exercise in Winnipeg will be peaceful: military

http://www.cbc.ca/manitoba/story/chargi ... 60310.html

Canada's military says a major training exercise in Winnipeg in the first week of May is not an invasion of the city even though some business owners are worried that the operation will disturb the peace.

I've heard about stuff like this in lots of other urban centres, and don't recall any serious disruption with exercises like this.

I know the woman interviewed in the article, and she does have a point - it is right to be concerned, and to bring that concern to the publics' attention. I'm thinking all will be okay, though. (heck, the only thing that stops me from going to her store at all is the winter weather sometimes - she has an amazing bookstore inside her 'antifashion emporium' - actually, that was where my art show was last year)

Anybody here ever lived in a city where the military was doing urban training exercises like this?

Yeah, they hit the financial district here in ToWANto about 8 months ago. I don't thjink it was completely military - more like a massive public disaster, but the military was fully engaged so they could co-ordinate across all the agencies that would be involved.

Didn't do anything but disturb the homeless people...

Jason

Canada has an army?! When did that happen?

I think, the best answer to that, Kevin, would be around 1812. We needed it because some people mistakenly thought our land was their property. Had one ever since.

Of course, it's gone through a rough patch, but it's why the US Isn't in Afghanistan. We've taken over.

J.

'Twas just a joke, my friend. Didn't mean to hit a sore spot!

No worries, Kevin. The 1812 is a common Canadian comeback when we hear things like that. Just a "friendly" way of reminding out American friends that in the one war we had between us, the US lost.

As for the sore point - it comes more from a conversation I had earlier this evening where the focus of the discussion was whether or not it would be beneficial for the Canadian army to incur fatalities in Afghanistan. This is not because it it would beneficial for the Afghanis, but because it's been since the end of Korea that Canada was involved in a aggressive war situation, and I really think the army needs to know they can take a punch, and keep swinging. Otherwise, what are they good for?

Jason

Most Americans will shrug when you mention the War of 1812, but there are others who still refer to it as the Second War of Independence and will fight anybody who suggests either that the U.S. fought the war to grab Canada OR that the Americans lost.

Personally, I do not believe that grabbing Canada was THE reason the U.S. went to war, but it was A reason. If you believe the only reason the U.S. went to war was to grab Canada, then yes---Canada won. I believe an equally good case can be made that the Americans "broke even" in that war.

You just brought up another good point. One of the major reasons why the confederation of Canada formed was that Britain felt there was still a chance that a strong reunited United States could attack Canada. A united system of government for their North American colonies would make it easier to defend Canada and get Canadians to pay for their own defense. (Paying for the French and Indian War was how all the taxes started that eventually led to the American Revolution.) Canadian students of history will also probably remember the Fenian Raids along with the Trent Affair.

Heh - I was watching a bit of a news item last night that talked about how, while there was a Canada since 1867, there were no Canadian citizens until 1947. Instead, everyone was a British Subject.

Technically, Canadians are still subject to the Crown, but today it's a moot point. There once was a time when the British would have bristled if somebody called them a subject. Today, it is not uncommon for not just the British media, but also Her Majesty's government to use the term "British citizen." I suspect 1947 was the turning point. That's when India became a republic but asked to stay in the Commonwealth if they were to treat the British sovreign as symbolic head of the group of nations, but not the monarch of India. After that, "citizen" was not such a dirty word anymore...

Incidentally, I'm glad the brief mention of the War of 1812 did not degenerate into something really ugly. Anyway, I found this article at Wikipedia treats the war even-handedly. It also mentions that this war means much more to CanadiWANs than Brits or Yankees. Most Americans have forgotten about the war. My state---for obvious reasons---is a notable exception.

It's IMWAN; we don't do ugly. We don't even like to do serious.

Some Canadians take it seriously because it was perceived as having to defend themselves and their land against an army who was dead set on not having any enemies close enough to invade (probably a justifiable feeling) while being a long, long way from any help from the Crown, who didn't give a crap about Canada anyway. They came here to get away from the war, and the war came anyway.

And, thanks to Ian's archaeology, I can now comment on the Afghanistan situation - things are progressing about as well as could be hoped for for the Canadian army. Yes, we're losing people, but no so many as to be a national tragedy (personal ones, absolutely); I think we're making a positive difference with what we have, and the government is realizing that what we have is not enough and so they've opened the cheque book to buy better equipment.

All in all, it's everything I'd hoped for from our little Afghanistan adventure. Bring the boys back home, but not before they do what they set out to do.



Jason

What's really sad is this. I don't think the U.S. needed to invade Iraq, but I did think that attacking Afghanistan was more than justified. (In fact, I am still angry at those who like Boondocks cartoon Aaron McGruder who said we had no business there.) But Bush's obsession with Sadaam Hussein has not only made a basket case of Iraq, but there is a very real danger tht the Taliban may return to power in Kabul. Worse, if NATO fails in Afghanistan, this could mean the end of the transatlantic alliance.

Jason, I agree with you 100%.

I agree with this too... except, I like to think that Afghanistan was being liberated from Taliban rule rather than attacked per se. Just semantics, I'm sure that's what you meant.

Without getting into the fact that the U.S. should have completed the Afghanistan job before doing anything else and the fact that many NATO partners are failing in this mission, I'm very proud of what Canada is doing over there. It is slow and sacrifices are being made, but I believe we are making a difference.

Speaking of Canadian military:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Avro_Arrow