1 billion $ spending cuts proposed for Canadian army

[AnchorClanker]

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.

Concur.

[Ideologue]

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.

Well, that's interesting wording.

Sure, when they show up, they do fine.

[Razgovory]

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?

Well the French ceded large amounts of territory to Spain the year before.

[Jacob]

How about just the guys from Vancouver?

  Funds would be lacking.

Ok, just this guy from Vancouver.

Deal.   

In return this guy from Vancouver will buy you a beer

[crazy canuck]

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.

And if the Treaty of Paris did not cede that territory would you still call it a conquest?  A conquest implies gaining something through force of arms.  But the occupation (not conquest) of the French held territory in North America did not gaining that territory for the British.

Put it this way if that was the only land the British occupied during the war the French would have won...

[AnchorClanker]

   Yay.  I dig the Anglophone Alliance.

[crazy canuck]

  Yay.  I dig the Anglophone Alliance.

Reciprocity is our way.

[Jacob]

And if the Treaty of Paris did not cede that territory would you still call it a conquest?

That depends on whether they left afterwards.

A conquest implies gaining something through force of arms.  But the occupation (not conquest) of the French held territory in North America did not gaining that territory for the British.

Still sounds like the force of arms to me.

You have "occupation of land by armed forces" followed by "ceding of the relevant lands". Like I said, close enough for me.

Put it this way if that was the only land the British occupied during the war the French would have won...

... and then the Brits would have left Quebec again, rendering it a temporary occupation, not a conquest. But they stayed. I don't see how the location of the decisive battles or the site of the negotiation determines whether it's a conquest or an occupation, when the status of the territory after the conflict is so much more clear cut.

[Neil]

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.

That's because your perspective is tainted because you live after the era of total war.

[Berkut]

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?

I don't have any issue with Canada cutting defense spending - although comparing it to the US is a bit silly, since they are cutting from a trivial spend to an even more trivial spend, while the US spend is anything but trivial.

My only objection is to BBs pretense that the cut doesn't really mean anything since it is only a billion, and out of 21 billion! Like a 5% cut is so insignificant that it doesn't even count, and presumably won't have any impact anyway.

[Neil]

$21 billion isn't insignificant though.

[Berkut]

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.

The US IS most certainly doing you a favor, but that doesn't mean at all that the US is doing so out of anything other than their own best interests.

[Berkut]

$21 billion isn't insignificant though.

Not at all, and cutting $1 billion of it is not insignificant either.

$21 billion is pretty trivial though as a percentage of GDP to spend on the military. Standard problem of the commons though.

[Berkut]

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

No kidding. I am still kind of amazed that we apparently cannot possibly defend out interests at the level of spending of 15 years ago. Seemed like our interests were pretty well defended then, and we didn't even have to rely on anyone else to do so.

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.

u mad?

[Neil]

Not at all, and cutting $1 billion of it is not insignificant either.

Agreed.  Then again, if you're going to cut a budget, those cuts should always be significant.

$21 billion is pretty trivial though as a percentage of GDP to spend on the military. Standard problem of the commons though.

I don't think so.  For a country with no significant military commitments around the world and no immediate threats to public safety or territorial integrity, $20 billion seems pretty reasonable.