1 billion $ spending cuts proposed for Canadian army

[viper37]

You define it as a conquest because it suites your world view and political bias to do so.  But that fact is the negotiations at the Treaty of Paris could have resulted in the French giving some other colonies.  It was a war between European powers.  Not a war between Canada and Britain.

Doesn't change the fact that the territory was conquered by the British.
Had there been no war, do you think France would have given away the Colony to Great Britain?  Of course not.
Hence, it is a conquest.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conquest_%28military%29

Doesn't matter if it's a sovereign country or a colony, it was conquered.  This is a fact, and it has no political bias.

[crazy canuck]

On the budget cutting, maybe the US would be in a better fiscal position if they stopped trying to defend the world  

And lets face facts, the only reason the US spends any money on the defence of Canadian air space is because it acts as a convenient early warning system for the Americans.  So Habbuku and Berkut can stuff the self serving implication that somehow the US is doing us a favour.

That's the direction Putin's missiles come from. 

and bombers.  Habbs and Berkut can save their "we are there to protect you" bs.

[AnchorClanker]

Mild aside - I'm thankful for the HMCS Charlottetown and HMCS Vancouver.  Good allies, good neighbo(u)rs.
Also, the NATO commander for the Libya shebang is a Canadian three-star (Bouchard).

So far as I'm concerned, the Canadians have been pulling their weight with our joint endeavo(u)rs.

[crazy canuck]

neighbo(u)rs.

[AnchorClanker]

I'll buy a beer for the guys on the HMCS Vancouver anytime.  I owe 'em.   

[crazy canuck]

How about just the guys from Vancouver?

[AnchorClanker]

How about just the guys from Vancouver?

  Funds would be lacking.

[Razgovory]

This is a silly argument.  That's like me saying there was no Indian living on the very spot of my house ergo the US did not take this land from Indians.  Since the French were fighting Indians in what's now Quebec (and further afield), I think it counts as conquest and colonization.  Obviously some of the Indians took exception to the French presence.

Again, there were no indians living in Quebec that were displaced by the French, be it the army or the colonists.

The Iroquois claimed these lands as part of their hunting ground, but they had been driven off by other indians (Hurons, Mikmak, and other Algonquian nations).  They also drove out the indians that Cartier first encountered in Hochelagga (Montréal).

So it wasn't their lands at all.  But with guns&alcool from the British & Dutch, they were encouraged to attack the settlers of Ville-Marie (Montreal).  Besides, the Iroquois were an imperialist culture, trying to achieve dominance over other tribes.

But with facts, you can prove anything, so why bother with them?  Since you're clearly don't care about facts, I suggest not arguing.  If you do care, than try to read something.

  So there were no Indians there, except the ones that were there and sometimes attacked the French but they were forced to by other people and they deserved what they got anyway.  And facts can prove anything so it doesn't matter.  That's your argument?  Oh my.  I guess this is part of the Nationalist myth that Quebecers tell each other.  The innocent French who settled in peace but were defeated by the blood stained Anglos.

How absurd.  No wonder you don't want to argue, you don't have ground to stand on.  You are descended from Colonists and Imperialists.

[Neil]

After losing Quebec in a battle (Plain of Abrahams, you know, 1759?  When Wolfe's Army defeated Montcalm's?), After Montreal surrendered a year later and all trading posts/forts were either destroyed by battle or surrendered to the British overwhelming force.
Imho, that fits the definition of conquest.

Of course, France surrendered New France to the British.  After it was conquered by them.  Had New France not been conquered by Britain, I doubt they would have surrendered the colony just like that, even if it was a money pit at the time.

But none of what happened in Quebec was all that important to the final settlement.  Britain took the French sugar isles during the war as well, but France retained them in the final peace treaty.

[crazy canuck]

How about just the guys from Vancouver?

  Funds would be lacking.

Ok, just this guy from Vancouver.

[viper37]

  So there were no Indians there, except the ones that were there and sometimes attacked the French but they were forced to by other people and they deserved what they got anyway.  And facts can prove anything so it doesn't matter.  That's your argument?  Oh my.  I guess this is part of the Nationalist myth that Quebecers tell each other.  The innocent French who settled in peace but were defeated by the blood stained Anglos.

How absurd.  No wonder you don't want to argue, you don't have ground to stand on.  You are descended from Colonists and Imperialists.

I see you fail at reading.  Try again, and feel free to write again when you have understood everything.  Especially the timeline part.  See, 1534 comes before 1608, not after.  Once you grab the basics, we can have a meaningful discussion again.  There's nothing worst than an ignorant who'se proud of ignoring facts.

[viper37]

After losing Quebec in a battle (Plain of Abrahams, you know, 1759?  When Wolfe's Army defeated Montcalm's?), After Montreal surrendered a year later and all trading posts/forts were either destroyed by battle or surrendered to the British overwhelming force.
Imho, that fits the definition of conquest.

Of course, France surrendered New France to the British.  After it was conquered by them.  Had New France not been conquered by Britain, I doubt they would have surrendered the colony just like that, even if it was a money pit at the time.

But none of what happened in Quebec was all that important to the final settlement.  Britain took the French sugar isles during the war as well, but France retained them in the final peace treaty.

Can you name one territory, not conquered by Britain, that was given by France in 1763? What about previous wars, did that happen that a colonial power gave away freely it's colony, no sale, no conquest of said territory first?

[Razgovory]

  So there were no Indians there, except the ones that were there and sometimes attacked the French but they were forced to by other people and they deserved what they got anyway.  And facts can prove anything so it doesn't matter.  That's your argument?  Oh my.  I guess this is part of the Nationalist myth that Quebecers tell each other.  The innocent French who settled in peace but were defeated by the blood stained Anglos.

How absurd.  No wonder you don't want to argue, you don't have ground to stand on.  You are descended from Colonists and Imperialists.

I see you fail at reading.  Try again, and feel free to write again when you have understood everything.  Especially the timeline part.  See, 1534 comes before 1608, not after.  Once you grab the basics, we can have a meaningful discussion again.  There's nothing worst than an ignorant who's proud of ignoring facts.

I read it the first time, it's still an absurd argument.  Simply because you don't see anyone at that very moment on some property doesn't mean some one doesn't consider it theirs.  The French showing up, building forts and towns and hunting game on a tribes hunting ground is a grave threat to those Indians.

[Jacob]

So the British sent an army to Quebec, defeated the French forces there and took control of the territory.

It is argued that this is not a conquest because the decision to cede the territory was not predicated on the victory in Quebec but rather on a continental European calculation?

I don't know, seems close enough for a conquest to me.

[AnchorClanker]

How about just the guys from Vancouver?

  Funds would be lacking.

Ok, just this guy from Vancouver.

Deal.