1 billion $ spending cuts proposed for Canadian army

[viper37]

Otherwise, your "logic" that 1 billion from 21 is no big deal should just as readily apply to 1 billion from 20, or 950 million from 19, or 900 million from 900, etc., etc. Is there something magical about that LAST 1 billion that makes it different and somehow irrelevant compared to the other 20 billion?

If you know what you were talking about, it wouldn't be magical.
.

[viper37]

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.

And this time, without cutting the province's fundings.
But it's still project.

Defense dept is not different than any other departments.  All of them have to submit a spending cut scenarios or 5% and 10%.

If we agree there's fat to trim in social security services, without affecting services to the general population, I don't see why it's impossible for the army.

[Razgovory]

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.

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.

[Grey Fox]

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.

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.

The question, imo, should be are you conquering land from a people when said people has no concept of land ownership and of sovereignity?

[crazy canuck]

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.

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.

[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.

[HVC]

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.

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.

The question, imo, should be are you conquering land from a people when said people has no concept of land ownership and of sovereignity?

no concept of land ownership, but a concept of land usage. Can they still farm and hunt the land? No. So ya, you conquered it. Deal.

[Grey Fox]

CC post 2 times. One I disagree with the other am in complete agreement.

Damn it, stop being so polirazing(sp?).

[Razgovory]

Did all the tribes have no concept of land ownership?  What about property rights.  Even if they were not living on some land at that exact moment of time, they may have considered it their hunting grounds.

[Grey Fox]

Did all the tribes have no concept of land ownership?  What about property rights.  Even if they were not living on some land at that exact moment of time, they may have considered it their hunting grounds.

Oex could probably enlighten you further but as far as I know they had no property rights. They barely had any concept of private ownership.

[crazy canuck]

CC post 2 times. One I disagree with the other am in complete agreement.

Damn it, stop being so polirazing(sp?).

Its my nature and why I fit in so well at Languish.

[Razgovory]

Did all the tribes have no concept of land ownership?  What about property rights.  Even if they were not living on some land at that exact moment of time, they may have considered it their hunting grounds.

Oex could probably enlighten you further but as far as I know they had no property rights. They barely had any concept of private ownership.

I wonder what they fought each other for.

[Malthus]

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.

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.

The question, imo, should be are you conquering land from a people when said people has no concept of land ownership and of sovereignity?

It is not true that the natives had no concept of land ownership. They had no concept of land being a fungible good that could be bought and sold it is true, but they had a very highly developed system of rights over land - for example, in the Temiskaming area, the local natives had in historic times (and presumably before) a very thorough and complex system of hunting, fishing and trapping rights over land, ownership of which was inherited through the female line. Another native hunting on one's land resulted in an obligation to the "owner" that had to be discharged.

Taking away those rights by settling on that land through force is most definitely "conquest". 

[viper37]

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.

[MadImmortalMan]

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.