A forthcoming poll finds that although the majority of respondents oppose conscription, all age categories are more likely to support conscription if it is gender-neutral.
Ehh.
IMO WWI was just a war between declining empires. Not like we were fighting for anything but Britain in that one. At least WWII has the excuse of fighting fascism, but in my opinion that’s a sort of post facto justification considering how friendly the US and UK was with right wing ideals before the war.
Would I fight a war against fascism? Yeah. Would I fight a war to make Danielle Smith, her oil companies (I am Albertan so this is the first thing that I thought up, but it applies to capital-serving govt in general), and the ruling class richer? Nah.
It’s hard for me to imagine a war that Canada would be engaged in that wouldn’t be just to save the US’s declining influence, but I imagine that some Canadians would support conscription if there was a proper justification that wasn’t “save the US empire” or “make more money for oil companies”.
A lot of opinion over the fact that Canada, in its entire history, has only used conscription twice and it was for two major conflicts. The arguments you are attempting to make are moot when considering this very big fact. Obviously no one, excluding the nuts from the same tree, would be super keen on conscription to fight a meaningless war.
If it is hard to imagine a war Canada would be fighting to defend itself worry not because the arctic is thawing and a few countries are salivating over it.
A lot of opinion over the fact that Canada, in its entire history, has only used conscription twice and it was for two major conflicts
I never claimed otherwise.
The arguments you are attempting to make are moot when considering this very big fact
Not really. It has nothing to do with how many times Canada has used conscription.
If it is hard to imagine a war Canada would be fighting to defend itself worry not because the arctic is thawing and a few countries are salivating over it.
I imagine if a straight up war of conquest over Canada’s north happened, more Canadian’s would be willing to help with that and conscription would probably be unnecessary. That highly depends on our feelings of national unity, which to me seem to be at an all time low (in my lifetime).
I feel that any attempt by the federal government to introduce compulsory military service would be disastrous as there’s high tensions when it comes to the prairie provinces and Quebec. Why would they consent to their peoples being forced to fight and die for a united Canada when they don’t feel like Canada should be united?
I don’t know how they would plan to address this, but I feel Canada would need a large reason to be unified if they were to introduce conscription, and the current climate isn’t it.
I never said you did, nor am I here to argue with you about this.
The point was the commenter, who isn’t you, brought up wars that have nothing to do with conscription. Which is why I brought up WW1 and WW2 in the first place.
Similarly, if conscription did take place on a gender-neutral basis for both men and women, 50 per cent of Canadians would oppose it. With the exact reverse also holding true, a large percentage of Canadians may potentially support conscription if the right scenario arose.
The topic is conscription and if Canadians support it.The survey and article states a 50/50 split on Gender neutral conscription, and support if the right situation arose. We aren’t talking about if shit goes down would conscription even be necessary, and we are not talking about how unified Canada is or isn’t
Stay on point if you wish to continue speaking to me please.
Brother if you consider the idea that there would be future conscriptions moot why are you even here? That’s the topic. That’s what we talking about. If you don’t want to consider the possibility there could be future contributions then you are kind of wasting everyone’s time here because again that’s the topic.
We are not talking about previous conscription, we are talking about future conscriptions. History is a useful indicator but does not predict the future.
The issue is “people dont want conscription” the answer is “make sure conscripts wont be abused for pointless wars”. Most people would be willing to defend their homes by force without a second thought.
Just because there hasnt been a fire in your neighbourhood in the last 50 years, do you not buy insurance when you buy a house?
We are not talking about previous conscription, we are talking about future conscriptions. History is a useful indicator but does not predict the future.
Why did you bring up other wars if history cannot predict the future? Here is your last comment to refresh your memory.
Uuuhm what do you think Canada was doing in Afghanistan or Libya or Iraq. And dont tell me “war on terror” or “liberation” because thats not even funny anymore at this point.
If you just want to derail the thread with off topic references, and aren’t willing to speak on the actual history of Canadian conscription policies or discuss the article, don’t bother responding to me.
Maybe respond to the points made instead of bringing up cherry picked points you wanted to make.
What was Canada doing in WW1 and WW2? The only times in Canadian history that we had a conscription policy FYI.
Ehh. IMO WWI was just a war between declining empires. Not like we were fighting for anything but Britain in that one. At least WWII has the excuse of fighting fascism, but in my opinion that’s a sort of post facto justification considering how friendly the US and UK was with right wing ideals before the war.
Would I fight a war against fascism? Yeah. Would I fight a war to make Danielle Smith, her oil companies (I am Albertan so this is the first thing that I thought up, but it applies to capital-serving govt in general), and the ruling class richer? Nah.
It’s hard for me to imagine a war that Canada would be engaged in that wouldn’t be just to save the US’s declining influence, but I imagine that some Canadians would support conscription if there was a proper justification that wasn’t “save the US empire” or “make more money for oil companies”.
At least that’s my opinion.
A lot of opinion over the fact that Canada, in its entire history, has only used conscription twice and it was for two major conflicts. The arguments you are attempting to make are moot when considering this very big fact. Obviously no one, excluding the nuts from the same tree, would be super keen on conscription to fight a meaningless war.
If it is hard to imagine a war Canada would be fighting to defend itself worry not because the arctic is thawing and a few countries are salivating over it.
I never claimed otherwise.
Not really. It has nothing to do with how many times Canada has used conscription.
I imagine if a straight up war of conquest over Canada’s north happened, more Canadian’s would be willing to help with that and conscription would probably be unnecessary. That highly depends on our feelings of national unity, which to me seem to be at an all time low (in my lifetime). I feel that any attempt by the federal government to introduce compulsory military service would be disastrous as there’s high tensions when it comes to the prairie provinces and Quebec. Why would they consent to their peoples being forced to fight and die for a united Canada when they don’t feel like Canada should be united?
I don’t know how they would plan to address this, but I feel Canada would need a large reason to be unified if they were to introduce conscription, and the current climate isn’t it.
I never said you did, nor am I here to argue with you about this.
The point was the commenter, who isn’t you, brought up wars that have nothing to do with conscription. Which is why I brought up WW1 and WW2 in the first place.
The topic is conscription and if Canadians support it.The survey and article states a 50/50 split on Gender neutral conscription, and support if the right situation arose. We aren’t talking about if shit goes down would conscription even be necessary, and we are not talking about how unified Canada is or isn’t
Stay on point if you wish to continue speaking to me please.
Brother if you consider the idea that there would be future conscriptions moot why are you even here? That’s the topic. That’s what we talking about. If you don’t want to consider the possibility there could be future contributions then you are kind of wasting everyone’s time here because again that’s the topic.
Funny because I never said that.
Give the thread another once over and try again. Do your best not to waste my time by staying on topic with your second attempt.
We are not talking about previous conscription, we are talking about future conscriptions. History is a useful indicator but does not predict the future.
The issue is “people dont want conscription” the answer is “make sure conscripts wont be abused for pointless wars”. Most people would be willing to defend their homes by force without a second thought.
Just because there hasnt been a fire in your neighbourhood in the last 50 years, do you not buy insurance when you buy a house?
Why did you bring up other wars if history cannot predict the future? Here is your last comment to refresh your memory.
If you just want to derail the thread with off topic references, and aren’t willing to speak on the actual history of Canadian conscription policies or discuss the article, don’t bother responding to me.