1 billion $ spending cuts proposed for Canadian army

[Berkut]

Funding for the Canadian Forces has gone UP significantly in the last few years.  This is hardly the death of a thousand cuts.

No - a 5% cut is rarely 'drastic'.  And it certainly isn't in this case.

Of course not. 5% is never drastic, and hence neither is the next 5%. Or the 5% after that. Since it is "rarely" drastic, you can just keep on whacking off 5% forever, by definition. This is what YOU have said.

Whatever though - if Canada wants to cut their military, they should just do so. They've increased spending recently, and if they want to go back to their previous spend levels, why not just say so, rather than pretend like there is some amount of waste they can cut without really cutting?

Hey, they spend a whopping 1.5% of their GDP on their military, clearly that is way too much.

[Berkut]

To be fair, no amount of cuts in the Canadian Forces will harm the USA's ability to defend Canada.

Thank goodness our two countries are such good friends then.

Canada should just disband their armed forces and pay 5% of the US defense budget.  Win-win.

If the US would give Canada 5% of authority over how the US military is used, that might be a reasonable basis for discussion...

Pfft, they already get more than that as it is, since defending Canada is an implicit factor in US defense spending, along with the rest of the world, but Canada much more than most.

[Zoupa]

To be fair, no amount of cuts in the Canadian Forces will harm the USA's ability to defend Canada.

Thank goodness our two countries are such good friends then.

Canada should just disband their armed forces and pay 5% of the US defense budget.  Win-win.

If the US would give Canada 5% of authority over how the US military is used, that might be a reasonable basis for discussion...

Pfft, they already get more than that as it is, since defending Canada is an implicit factor in US defense spending, along with the rest of the world, but Canada much more than most.

So don't. Nobody's forcing you, or can force you.

[Jacob]

So don't. Nobody's forcing you, or can force you.

No kidding. Look at the size of their armed forces. No way to force the US to do anything it doesn't want to.

[Ancient Demon]

Funding for the Canadian Forces has gone UP significantly in the last few years.  This is hardly the death of a thousand cuts.

No - a 5% cut is rarely 'drastic'.  And it certainly isn't in this case.

Yes, didn't it go as low as 10 billion at one point in the 1990s?

[Razgovory]

Right, cutting 5% won't destroy it and neither will another 5% after that and another 5% after that. In fact, you can always cut 5%, and have virtually no effect at all! Repeat ad naseum.

I thought you were against spending. 

[Malthus]

Fact is that, like it or not, the US will soon also have to cut military spending, because they are rapidly going broke.

Canada is simply doing what it has become reasonably adept at doing since the (for Canada) disasterous deficit bloat of the 70s and 80s - trimming its financial sails to meet its means, *ahead* of racking up an unsustainable debt.

The US is simply going through a similar experience Canada went through - only of course on a vastly greater scale. Remember when Canada's debt-ridden national economy was a hilarious joke?

[Barrister]

Funding for the Canadian Forces has gone UP significantly in the last few years.  This is hardly the death of a thousand cuts.

No - a 5% cut is rarely 'drastic'.  And it certainly isn't in this case.

Of course not. 5% is never drastic, and hence neither is the next 5%. Or the 5% after that. Since it is "rarely" drastic, you can just keep on whacking off 5% forever, by definition. This is what YOU have said.

Whatever though - if Canada wants to cut their military, they should just do so. They've increased spending recently, and if they want to go back to their previous spend levels, why not just say so, rather than pretend like there is some amount of waste they can cut without really cutting?

Hey, they spend a whopping 1.5% of their GDP on their military, clearly that is way too much.

That doesn't remotely resemble anything I said.

I'll let you continue to argue with what you imagine I am saying then.

[Ed Anger]

I lost all respect for the Canucks when they disbanded their para regiment. Just because they tortured a few somalis.

And didn't sink any Spanish vessels in the Turbot war. pussies.

[viper37]

I don't care about any of that.

yes, you're not one to be swayed by facts.

[viper37]

If we are to speak of Canada as the French colony then it was not conquered.  France gave over the territory in the Treaty of Paris. 

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.

[viper37]

In the whole of Quebec?  It's a pretty big province.  I find that hard to believe.

Where there was settlements, wich practically speaking was the St-Lawrence valley.

[viper37]

Why are you so butthurt about Britain winning and taking land from France anyway?  It is not like the French never acquired any territory after they won a war.  I was in Nice and I didn't notice them bitching about it.

I don't get this... you were apparently talking to me, but that doesn't make sense.  CC says Canada was never conquered. It's a factual error, it's all I'm arguing about.

We were discussing spending cuts to the military btw.  Her Majesty's Royal Army from the Dominion of Canada, actually.

[Grey Fox]

CC, I understand you like to oppose everything & anything that Viper says but you can't deny that Canada was conquered. That's just bad historial revisionism.

Also, I guess the Japanese never conquered the Philippines either. It was just an unfortuante misunderstanding before a treaty could be made.

[viper37]

Right, cutting 5% won't destroy it and neither will another 5% after that and another 5% after that. In fact, you can always cut 5%, and have virtually no effect at all! Repeat ad naseum.

So you are against any spending cuts whatsoever? if a budget increase over some period of time, it should be allowed to grow infinately? Weird.