"Protecting our freedom overseas"

If it were just because everyone likes happy-peace and awesome clocks that'd be one thing, but I'm not sure how much that sentiment applies when they get there through ass-kissing everyone in sight via business deals of dubious legality with the least palatable people those countries have to offer.

Also, there's a certain amount of merit to the idea of protecting the home turf by taking the fight to people who would otherwise be attacking us and keeping them pressured on their own defense. Granted there's a point where you just start to piss people off instead.

edited 13th May '11 4:43:00 PM by Pykrete

I've actually never heard anyone say that they don't like Switzerland IRL, and the only place on the net where I've heard people say they don't like Switzerland is this very site.

I love Switzerland. I just realize that their relative safety has more to do with shady business with whoever will have it than outside warring forces respecting a desire for neutrality. They have something everyone wants and has a stake in not setting aflame, plain and simple.

edited 13th May '11 4:52:45 PM by Pykrete

I hate the Swiss, them and their precision time pieces, hole-filled cheese and sweet, sweet, chocolate.

Not to mention their damn fancy knives.

Switzerland is also safe 'cause it doesn't have extreme amounts of natural resources (nor does it, to my knowledge, produce anything really rare and useful) and because it's located in the Alps, which makes invading it a bitch (and defending it much easier).

edited 13th May '11 4:52:08 PM by BestOf

I am with barkey on this one. As is interestingly my father a bomber pilot from the 80's.

Barkey: Post Vietnam I would say we are protecting our citizens. The draft is pretty much a huge taboo now because of Vietnam and will not likely be used again outside of dire straits. The other reason it won't be used is we have a volunteer military through and through. A lack of large body of professional soldiers means we would have to rely on a draft model. Meaning joe citizen would thrown into the fray.

But that would be the maximum extent of how we protect the citizens aside from disaster and active threats at home.

Switzerland has the deterrent of being in the pocket of every large corporation, lobbying group, criminal syndicate, and any other major social grouping with illicit finances you can think of.

That doesn't really bother me much. Nor does their compulsory military service and the fact that they get to take their rifles home when they finish and keep them indefinitely...

You know what, I forgot how much I fucking love Switzerland. Fuck America. Canadians and the Swiss all the way.

Put down that haterade!

Their chocolate is pretty ice though...

Canada certainly is one of the countries that I consider the best places to live in the world.

I think I might actually rank it higher than Finland if I were ever to make such a list of countries.

Indeed. They are all peaceful and economically prosperous countries that also believe in the right to bear arms.

That's why they get the Barkey A+ For Awesome Award.

I'd like to visit Canada someday, yes. My wife hs some gamer friends who live there.

I don't believe in the right to bear arms unless you have a good reason, in which case you apply for a licence and register each gun you own. You need to pass an exam and prove that you can use the gun responsibly before you can get a license.

Good reasons:

• You need (a) gun(s) for your job. (Cops)

• You have a hobby that requires a gun. (Hunting, precision shooting)

• You need one for self-defense (this kind of license would be extremely rare - people in witness protection programs would qualify, but almost no one else would).

...And now that I think of it, that's pretty much exactly the system we have in Finland, and we are 8th in the list of countries by gun ownership (measured in guns per 100 residents).

Huh.

Really?

Well, the Canadian dollar is doing well, but...

edited 13th May '11 5:56:12 PM by Zersk

I guess my observations are rather colored, out of all of my Canadian friends they are either in the military over there, and the only two civilian friends I have in Canada own a business and are a paramedic respectively.

...and now I realise that this thread is in OTC, not YF.

Well, that's easy to recenter:

"*cough*weaponsofmassdestruction*cough*"

Done!

Canada is relatively prosperous :) I'm biased since I have a good life going. Although the right to bear arms thing is strange, I mean, I can buy an AR-15 if I wanted to (it'd take some effort to get the licence) but generally you can only go to the firing range with it and not actually use it in a real situation.

You know largely, you want to prevent war you have to grow your soft power. Place like Switzerland is neutral because it runs good foreign policy (with respect to protecting the Swiss) and is a ridiculous fortress country surrounded by mountains. United States is another great example, with oceans to both sides, Mexico to the south and Canada to the north. USA took what they wanted from Mexico and Canada is capable of defending itself. At this point, there's no point for the USA to invade Canada so then what's the perils that face it?

Nuclear missiles is about it and nuclear war is fairly easy to avoid.

edited 14th May '11 1:23:38 PM by breadloaf

Especially since we love you Canada. <3

My base has an exchange program with the Canadian Air Force, so I have plenty of canuck friends who've been over here on rotation. THEY LET THEIR ENLISTED GUYS FLY PLANES AND THEIR OFFICERS CAN GROW BEARDS OMG.

Eh

Well, one way to protect your freedom would be to kill everybody. corpses can't violate your freedom, especially if you're dead yourself.

If only we could.

Also, another reason Switzerland isn't at war with anybody is that it's surrounded by friendly nations. You want to get to Switzerland you have to go through France/Germany/Italy/Austria.

Hmmm/meh/meh/meh

Some pre-emptive war is justified.

Let's assume Country A and Country B have a long-standing dispute. Country A confirms that Country B plans to attack them in the near future.

As soon as country B starts making preparations for attacking you, you go there and kick their butts. There's no need to allow Country B the first strike.

That assumes that all other options are exhausted. Like revealing the intel to United Nations, calling them for peace talks.

Of course, technically it's "OK" if you destroy only the assault force and leave other parts off, thus making it seem you only attacked to delay them enough to seek diplomatic route.

Remember, politics are all theater.