Should we say Royal Army of the Dominion of Canada now?
Anyway, it's an interesting proposal. Let's see if the Conservatives will act on this report or simply 'forget' it.
http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/story/2011/10/03/pol-leslie-canadian-forces-transformation.html
I predict they will conveniently forget it, now that they have a majority, they don't seem that interested in reducing expenses. It's not as sexy as hanging Queen's pictures everywhere.
Canada joins New Zealand and Belgium and defends itself by relying on a big friendly well armed neighbor.
Sounds like the perfect time to invade. :shifty:
Quote from: Viking on October 04, 2011, 01:30:25 AM
Canada joins New Zealand and Belgium and defends itself by relying on a big friendly well armed neighbor.
That's pretty much been the case for the last 60 years.
Quote from: Zoupa on October 04, 2011, 01:55:23 AM
Quote from: Viking on October 04, 2011, 01:30:25 AM
Canada joins New Zealand and Belgium and defends itself by relying on a big friendly well armed neighbor.
That's pretty much been the case for the last 60 years.
Canada had an impressive force during the Cold War.
Assuming that some proper warming of the Arctic will go down during the next couple of decades, isn't this a pretty stupid move? Canada could get insane profits from new resources and the NW Passage opening, but Russia will be all over them if they don't have a decent army.
If we are talking about countering Russia, it'll be NATO, not Canada. No matter how much Canada spends on defence, they can't fight the Russians on their own.
Quote from: Monoriu on October 04, 2011, 02:23:24 AM
If we are talking about countering Russia, it'll be NATO, not Canada. No matter how much Canada spends on defence, they can't fight the Russians on their own.
On a battlefield which is remote to Russia, home turf for Canada, and is in the main influence area of the US, there would be no actual hostilities, only bullying by Russia if they smell weakness.
Quote from: Viking on October 04, 2011, 01:30:25 AM
Canada joins New Zealand and Belgium and defends itself by relying on a big friendly well armed neighbor.
And why not, were I in there position I'd do the same.
No, no & no.
Altho his idea seem to be alright. We have way too much Full-time reservists.
Quote from: Monoriu on October 04, 2011, 02:23:24 AM
If we are talking about countering Russia, it'll be NATO, not Canada. No matter how much Canada spends on defence, they can't fight the Russians on their own.
Actually, the main enemy is liable to be the US.
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fupload.wikimedia.org%2Fwikipedia%2Fen%2F0%2F03%2FCanadian_Bacon.jpg&hash=2757e66d84aba8a893bf8da4b9411ee44a273190)
awful movie.
Quote from: Viking on October 04, 2011, 01:30:25 AM
Canada joins New Zealand and Belgium and defends itself by relying on a big friendly well armed neighbor.
:rolleyes:
Canada spends a little over $21 billion dollars per year on defence. With our heavy Afghanistan commitments, this has gone up quite a bit over the last several years. A cut of one billion dollars is hardly going to destroy the Canadian Forces.
And Viper - no it won't be the Royal Canadian Army. That was never its name. However we will continue to have the Royal 22e Regiment...
Euros and crypto-Euros: free riders.
Quote from: Zoupa on October 04, 2011, 01:55:23 AM
Quote from: Viking on October 04, 2011, 01:30:25 AM
Canada joins New Zealand and Belgium and defends itself by relying on a big friendly well armed neighbor.
That's pretty much been the case for the last 60 years.
:rolleyes:
The big cuts happened during the Trudeau governments. I know you are young but that wasnt 60 years ago.
Defends us from what? The Chinese love us.
Quote from: Barrister on October 04, 2011, 08:51:55 AM
Canada spends a little over $21 billion dollars per year on defence.
That's it? Woah.
Quote from: Valmy on October 04, 2011, 09:19:05 AM
Quote from: Barrister on October 04, 2011, 08:51:55 AM
Canada spends a little over $21 billion dollars per year on defence.
That's it? Woah.
Yup.
If you want the nitty gritty details, here it is right from Treasury Board:
http://www.tbs-sct.gc.ca/est-pre/20112012/me-bpd/docs/me-bpd-eng.pdf
Skip to page 243 for DND.
Thats out of a total governmental expenditures of 261 billion.
Remember our economy and population is only one tenth that of the US, and that nobody (and I mean nobody) spends as much per capita on defence as the US does.
Quote from: Valmy on October 04, 2011, 09:19:05 AM
Quote from: Barrister on October 04, 2011, 08:51:55 AM
Canada spends a little over $21 billion dollars per year on defence.
That's it? Woah.
It's 1.5% of the GDP. You guys spend 5%. Getting up to 5% would still just be 70 b$, still no where near what the USA spends.
Quote from: Tamas on October 04, 2011, 02:20:19 AM
Assuming that some proper warming of the Arctic will go down during the next couple of decades, isn't this a pretty stupid move? Canada could get insane profits from new resources and the NW Passage opening, but Russia will be all over them if they don't have a decent army.
the proposed cuts are for bureaucrats and reservists. Instead of a full time reserve force, they plan on slacking most of those (4500 people) or offering them a full time job as a member of the Canadian Army.
For civilians, well, since Afghanistan, the number of civilians has increased by 20 000 in the Department of National Defence. Logically, we don't need that many people once the war is over (for us, anyway).
Aside that, the proposal is to reduce the reliance on private contractors, slash the budget by 10% for these.
This way, we'd have a lean, mean machine :)
It's similar to any government cuts fiscal conservatives, such as the Conservative party, in theory.
The proposed cuts for the national television are in the same order, yet, I can't imagine the Conservative party not defending their cuts...
Quote from: Barrister on October 04, 2011, 08:51:55 AM
And Viper - no it won't be the Royal Canadian Army. That was never its name. However we will continue to have the Royal 22e Regiment...
And Princess Patricia, too. I don't mind the name of a regiment. I do mind the name for the entire army corps.
But about the cuts: yea or nay?
Quote from: viper37 on October 04, 2011, 09:50:24 AM
Quote from: Barrister on October 04, 2011, 08:51:55 AM
And Viper - no it won't be the Royal Canadian Army. That was never its name. However we will continue to have the Royal 22e Regiment...
And Princess Patricia, too. I don't mind the name of a regiment. I do mind the name for the entire army corps.
But about the cuts: yea or nay?
What the hell is the difference between "Royal" being in a unit name, and being in the name of the Army/Navy?
As for the cuts... well cuts need to be made. We're in better shape than most, but we're still running a very large defficit. I'm sure there's some room to trim in the armed forces.
Quote from: Barrister on October 04, 2011, 10:01:09 AM
What the hell is the difference between "Royal" being in a unit name, and being in the name of the Army/Navy?
Because most people don't see the Royal 22e Régiment, they see the Canadian army. Be it Canadians or foreigners.
Quote from: Barrister on October 04, 2011, 08:51:55 AM
Quote from: Viking on October 04, 2011, 01:30:25 AM
Canada joins New Zealand and Belgium and defends itself by relying on a big friendly well armed neighbor.
:rolleyes:
Canada spends a little over $21 billion dollars per year on defence. With our heavy Afghanistan commitments, this has gone up quite a bit over the last several years. A cut of one billion dollars is hardly going to destroy the Canadian Forces.
And Viper - no it won't be the Royal Canadian Army. That was never its name. However we will continue to have the Royal 22e Regiment...
There will never be a Royal Canadian Army, not traditionalist would ever suggest such a travesty for the simple reason that the Army did this
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.cpgb.org.uk%2Fimages%2F1004370.jpg&hash=572fb2d8836890e69fb4f9f03fdf8fa1cdf2740c)
to a King and has never really been forgiven for that.
I can assure you that the Canadian Army has never killed a monarch.
Quote from: Neil on October 04, 2011, 04:54:34 PM
I can assure you that the Canadian Army has never killed a monarch.
Here's a diagram for you.
Oliver's Army
|
|
-------------------------------------------------------
| |
Brit Army Canuck Army
Marti, did you just hack Viking's account?
Quote from: Ideologue on October 04, 2011, 09:07:38 AM
Euros and crypto-Euros: free riders.
It's perfectly logical. It's not as you guys will suddenly stop feeding the military-industrial complex with gazillions of dollars.
Suckers.
Quote from: Viking on October 04, 2011, 05:27:57 PM
Quote from: crazy canuck on October 04, 2011, 05:03:56 PM
Marti, did you just hack Viking's account?
Eh?
Your diagram was so nonsensical I thought I would give you the benefit of the doubt.
Quote from: crazy canuck on October 04, 2011, 05:32:41 PM
Quote from: Viking on October 04, 2011, 05:27:57 PM
Quote from: crazy canuck on October 04, 2011, 05:03:56 PM
Marti, did you just hack Viking's account?
Eh?
Your diagram was so nonsensical I thought I would give you the benefit of the doubt.
If you can't tell me what is wrong with it your comment is of no consequence to me. If you don't understand it I can try to restate or rephrase my point.
Quote from: Viking on October 04, 2011, 05:36:35 PM
Quote from: crazy canuck on October 04, 2011, 05:32:41 PM
Quote from: Viking on October 04, 2011, 05:27:57 PM
Quote from: crazy canuck on October 04, 2011, 05:03:56 PM
Marti, did you just hack Viking's account?
Eh?
Your diagram was so nonsensical I thought I would give you the benefit of the doubt.
If you can't tell me what is wrong with it your comment is of no consequence to me. If you don't understand it I can try to restate or rephrase my point.
Let me answer your question with another question. Do you really think there was such a thing as a Canadian army during the same time period as "Oliver's Army". Do you also think that humans and dinasours lived at the same time?
Quote from: crazy canuck on October 04, 2011, 05:41:58 PM
Let me answer your question with another question. Do you really think there was such a thing as a Canadian army during the same time period as "Oliver's Army". Do you also think that humans and dinasours lived at the same time?
I'm still confused how you concluded from my diagram that I argue that Oliver's Army is contemporaneous with either the Canadian or British Army.
The Act of Union occurring first in 1707, Canada being conquered in 1763 and Oliver Cromwell dying in 1658.
Both the British Army and Canadian Army decend from a common ancestor, The Parliamentary army.
I say this with the best of intentions, but you seem either to be mendacious, monumentally stupid or willfully ignorant.
Canada was conquered?
I think you have been reading too many of Grallon's posts lately.
Quote from: crazy canuck on October 04, 2011, 05:55:26 PM
Canada was conquered?
I think you have been reading too many of Grallon's posts lately.
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.cba-romania.ro%2FAbout%2520Us%2FThe%2520Death%2520of%2520General%2520Wolf%2520on%2520the%2520Plains%2520of%2520Abraham%2520-%25201759.jpg&hash=e9a96b8656b2df9798641537c93aebb138bc901f)
Apparently he died for nothing.....
Quote from: Oexmelin on October 04, 2011, 06:06:56 PM
Quote from: crazy canuck on October 04, 2011, 05:55:26 PM
Canada was conquered?
Erh... Yes?
You gotta forgive him, it's not covered at the Civ Museum in Gatineau so I figure Anglos don't consider it a Conquest.
:yuk:
I repeat; Mendacious, Monumentally Ignorant or Willfully Stupid.
Quote from: Viking on October 04, 2011, 05:01:14 PM
Quote from: Neil on October 04, 2011, 04:54:34 PM
I can assure you that the Canadian Army has never killed a monarch.
Here's a diagram for you.
Oliver's Army
|
|
-------------------------------------------------------
| |
Brit Army Canuck Army
Diagram fail. The ancestry of the Canadian Army is much more closely tied to the militias than the British Army, although it was certainly influenced by the British Army. Nevertheless, it was still the Militia until WWII.
Quote from: Neil on October 04, 2011, 06:49:02 PM
Diagram fail. The ancestry of the Canadian Army is much more closely tied to the militias than the British Army, although it was certainly influenced by the British Army. Nevertheless, it was still the Militia until WWII.
I'd argue that the Canadian Militia has the same relationship to the Army as the British Territorial Army does. Canadian Regiments may have drawn manpower from Militia Units, but the Regiments themselves were British and Commonwealth Regiments formed, operated and maintained as if they were integral to the British Army. Basically British Army units with Canadian manpower. To the army itself the only differentiation between a Yorkshire Regiment and a Manitoba one would be the annoying fact that the Canadian Government itself was somewhat tangential to the chain of command and thus the political consequences of any action involving it would be different that the political consequences of doing the same thing to the Yorkshire one.
The Canadian Army is created during WWI from units relying on canadian manpower in British Service, who, as a consequence of high casualties are granted their own army and army group as recompence.
But, to quote Wikipedia...
Quote from: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_the_Canadian_ArmyThe Canadian Army evolved from the various British garrison forces on the North American continent in the 19th century.
I'm pretty sure something like that wouldn't survive if it weren't true, since if untrue it would massively insult Canadian Army sensibilities.
Quote from: Grey Fox on October 04, 2011, 06:35:33 PM
Quote from: Oexmelin on October 04, 2011, 06:06:56 PM
Quote from: crazy canuck on October 04, 2011, 05:55:26 PM
Canada was conquered?
Erh... Yes?
You gotta forgive him, it's not covered at the Civ Museum in Gatineau so I figure Anglos don't consider it a Conquest.
:yuk:
That's okay, the Francophones probably don't consider their settlement of Quebec a Conquest either. But the First Nations probably do.
Quote from: Razgovory on October 04, 2011, 07:01:15 PM
Quote from: Grey Fox on October 04, 2011, 06:35:33 PM
Quote from: Oexmelin on October 04, 2011, 06:06:56 PM
Quote from: crazy canuck on October 04, 2011, 05:55:26 PM
Canada was conquered?
Erh... Yes?
You gotta forgive him, it's not covered at the Civ Museum in Gatineau so I figure Anglos don't consider it a Conquest.
:yuk:
That's okay, the Francophones probably don't consider their settlement of Quebec a Conquest either. But the First Nations probably do.
Fuck the First Nations.
Quote from: Grey Fox on October 04, 2011, 08:09:21 PM
Fuck the First Nations.
Oh, I think that's already happened.
Canada cannot fight Russia?
I thought Canada's economy was larger than Russia's.
Isin't Russia a 3rd world country with nukes?
I wonder what's Russia's GDP and income percapita these days.
Quote from: Grey Fox on October 04, 2011, 08:09:21 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on October 04, 2011, 07:01:15 PM
Quote from: Grey Fox on October 04, 2011, 06:35:33 PM
Quote from: Oexmelin on October 04, 2011, 06:06:56 PM
Quote from: crazy canuck on October 04, 2011, 05:55:26 PM
Canada was conquered?
Erh... Yes?
You gotta forgive him, it's not covered at the Civ Museum in Gatineau so I figure Anglos don't consider it a Conquest.
:yuk:
That's okay, the Francophones probably don't consider their settlement of Quebec a Conquest either. But the First Nations probably do.
Fuck the First Nations.
And the Second. :)
Quote from: Oexmelin on October 04, 2011, 06:06:56 PM
Quote from: crazy canuck on October 04, 2011, 05:55:26 PM
Canada was conquered?
Erh... Yes?
I suppose if you want to define Canada as something before Canada was actually formed in order to conform to a particular political ideology....
Quote from: crazy canuck on October 04, 2011, 09:07:55 PM
I suppose if you want to define Canada as something before Canada was actually formed in order to conform to a particular political ideology....
It has very little to do with political ideology and much to do with the actual political dynamics of the country. I think the British conquest of what, at the time, was called "Canada" (which followed the conquest of Acadia) is pretty fundamental in defining the shape of the country thereafter, including a) the strong military presence of British troops b) its subsequent loyalism c) the relationship to Britain. And that's leaving aside the conquest from Native people. It does not need to draw a direct equation between "Canada as a French colony" and "contemporary Canada" to be meaningful as an analysis. Therefore, I see very little wrong in the simple sentence: "Canada was conquered in 1760".
Of course, 1760's Canada is not 1867's Canada, and 1867's Canada is neither 1982's Canada nor 2011's Canada. But that is a constant problem in history. For better or for worse, "Canadian history" includes these elements - i.e., we have decided as a nation (or as two nations ;) ) to draw a line that would connect these different episodes.
Quote from: crazy canuck on October 04, 2011, 09:13:10 AM
Quote from: Zoupa on October 04, 2011, 01:55:23 AM
Quote from: Viking on October 04, 2011, 01:30:25 AM
Canada joins New Zealand and Belgium and defends itself by relying on a big friendly well armed neighbor.
That's pretty much been the case for the last 60 years.
:rolleyes:
The big cuts happened during the Trudeau governments. I know you are young but that wasnt 60 years ago.
That's nice. It's not really related to what I posted though. Try again?
Quote from: Razgovory on October 04, 2011, 07:01:15 PM
That's okay, the Francophones probably don't consider their settlement of Quebec a Conquest either. But the First Nations probably do.
There were no First Nations in Quebec by the time of Champlain. Nor in Montreal.
That's not a credible statement.
Quote from: crazy canuck on October 04, 2011, 09:07:55 PM
I suppose if you want to define Canada as something before Canada was actually formed in order to conform to a particular political ideology....
From Wikipedia:
Canada was the name of the French colony that once stretched along the St. Lawrence River; the other colonies of New France were Acadia, Louisiana and Newfoundland.[1] Canada, the most developed colony of New France, was divided into three districts, each with its own government: Québec, Trois-Rivières, and Montréal. The governor of the district of Québec was also the governor-general of all of New France.[1]
Quote from: Neil on October 05, 2011, 02:52:49 PM
That's not a credible statement.
then provide factual basis for a war of conquest in or around what is today Quebec city. Same for Montreal and Trois-Rivières.
I'll even say, provide me a factual basis for a war of conquest along the St-Lawrence river involving the French colonists & France against any native indian nation. Then, we'll discuss.
I don't care about any of that.
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.
When we say Canada today we speak of the nation not a colony of some other nation. Which is, I think the point Oex understood but tried to explain away. So when I see someone say that Canada was conquered you can understand why I would object to that. If Viking had said something to the effect that a French Colony had been ceded by the French to the English that would have made a lot more sense but of course that would have undermined the point he was trying to make.
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.
Quote from: Valmy on October 05, 2011, 03:12:43 PM
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.
STRAßBURG FOR STRAßBURGERS!
Quote from: Valmy on October 05, 2011, 03:12:43 PM
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.
We could program a bot for you to pop up to defend the French interests here. It would save some time.
Quote from: crazy canuck on October 05, 2011, 03:23:24 PM
We could program a bot for you to pop up to defend the French interests here. It would save some time.
How was I defending French interests? I thought I was just pointing out this was European power politics. Territory changing hands as some sort of outrage is absurd.
Nice was the example I used because France took it from Piedmont in 1859.
I also spent time in Barcelona but those people DO bitch. Miserable fucks.
Quote from: Valmy on October 05, 2011, 03:26:53 PM
Quote from: crazy canuck on October 05, 2011, 03:23:24 PM
We could program a bot for you to pop up to defend the French interests here. It would save some time.
How was I defending French interests? I thought I was just pointing out this was European power politics.
I was pointing out this was a European war and you used the word Butthurt. You have a really odd way of expressing yourself.
Quote from: Valmy on October 05, 2011, 03:26:53 PM
Quote from: crazy canuck on October 05, 2011, 03:23:24 PM
We could program a bot for you to pop up to defend the French interests here. It would save some time.
How was I defending French interests? I thought I was just pointing out this was European power politics. Territory changing hands as some sort of outrage is absurd.
Nice was the example I used because France took it from Piedmont in 1859.
I also spent time in Barcelona but those people DO bitch. Miserable fucks.
About
what? Being Catalans? No one cares. No one even recognizes they're a separate ethnic or linguistic group; even when they do, they still don't care. Example: me.
Quote from: crazy canuck on October 05, 2011, 03:33:17 PM
I was pointing out this was a European war and you used the word Butthurt. You have a really odd way of expressing yourself.
I was talking to Viper.
Quote from: Valmy on October 05, 2011, 04:20:26 PM
Quote from: crazy canuck on October 05, 2011, 03:33:17 PM
I was pointing out this was a European war and you used the word Butthurt. You have a really odd way of expressing yourself.
I was talking to Viper.
ah, an error of misattributed butthurt.
Quote from: viper37 on October 05, 2011, 02:50:36 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on October 04, 2011, 07:01:15 PM
That's okay, the Francophones probably don't consider their settlement of Quebec a Conquest either. But the First Nations probably do.
There were no First Nations in Quebec by the time of Champlain. Nor in Montreal.
In the whole of Quebec? It's a pretty big province. I find that hard to believe.
Quote from: Barrister on October 04, 2011, 09:27:41 AM
nobody (and I mean nobody) spends as much per capita on defence as the US does.
Except for North Korea, Eritrea, Saudi Arabia, Oman, the United Arab Emirates, Israel, Chad, Jordan, Georgia, and Iraq.
Quote from: jimmy olsen on October 05, 2011, 09:43:30 PM
Quote from: Barrister on October 04, 2011, 09:27:41 AM
nobody (and I mean nobody) spends as much per capita on defence as the US does.
Except for North Korea, Eritrea, Saudi Arabia, Oman, the United Arab Emirates, Israel, Chad, Jordan, Georgia, and Iraq.
Yet somehow I think you proved my point, despite simultaneously disproving it...
Quote from: Barrister on October 04, 2011, 08:51:55 AM
Quote from: Viking on October 04, 2011, 01:30:25 AM
Canada joins New Zealand and Belgium and defends itself by relying on a big friendly well armed neighbor.
:rolleyes:
Canada spends a little over $21 billion dollars per year on defence. With our heavy Afghanistan commitments, this has gone up quite a bit over the last several years. A cut of one billion dollars is hardly going to destroy the Canadian Forces.
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.
Quote from: Berkut on October 05, 2011, 10:57:47 PM
Quote from: Barrister on October 04, 2011, 08:51:55 AM
Quote from: Viking on October 04, 2011, 01:30:25 AM
Canada joins New Zealand and Belgium and defends itself by relying on a big friendly well armed neighbor.
:rolleyes:
Canada spends a little over $21 billion dollars per year on defence. With our heavy Afghanistan commitments, this has gone up quite a bit over the last several years. A cut of one billion dollars is hardly going to destroy the Canadian Forces.
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.
:rolleyes:
Given our Afghanistan expenditures, the expenses for the CF have increased substantially the last few years.
I'm sure if you want to do some research, you can find some fault in how Canada funds the CF. It's a shame you haven't done so in your post however. :(
To be fair, no amount of cuts in the Canadian Forces will harm the USA's ability to defend Canada.
Quote from: Barrister on October 05, 2011, 11:02:21 PM
Quote from: Berkut on October 05, 2011, 10:57:47 PM
Quote from: Barrister on October 04, 2011, 08:51:55 AM
Quote from: Viking on October 04, 2011, 01:30:25 AM
Canada joins New Zealand and Belgium and defends itself by relying on a big friendly well armed neighbor.
:rolleyes:
Canada spends a little over $21 billion dollars per year on defence. With our heavy Afghanistan commitments, this has gone up quite a bit over the last several years. A cut of one billion dollars is hardly going to destroy the Canadian Forces.
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.
:rolleyes:
Given our Afghanistan expenditures, the expenses for the CF have increased substantially the last few years.
I'm sure if you want to do some research, you can find some fault in how Canada funds the CF. It's a shame you haven't done so in your post however. :(
I don't need to do any research to point out the absurdity in "Gosh, we spend $21 billion, so a cut of $1 billion is hardly going to destroy anything!"
A 5% cut to the budget is drastic. It is a major reduction in spending, and you don't have to do any research to know that the standard refrain of budget cutters that THIS cut will only cut the magical deadweight and "inefficiency" leaving the core mission unaffected is of course standard bullshit.
If you want to cut the Canadian military by a huge amount, just have the balls to say that is what you are doing, rather than pretend like it is not really much of a cut at all.
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?
Quote from: Habbaku on October 05, 2011, 11:03:53 PM
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. :hug:
Quote from: Berkut on October 05, 2011, 11:08:59 PM
Quote from: Barrister on October 05, 2011, 11:02:21 PM
Quote from: Berkut on October 05, 2011, 10:57:47 PM
Quote from: Barrister on October 04, 2011, 08:51:55 AM
Quote from: Viking on October 04, 2011, 01:30:25 AM
Canada joins New Zealand and Belgium and defends itself by relying on a big friendly well armed neighbor.
:rolleyes:
Canada spends a little over $21 billion dollars per year on defence. With our heavy Afghanistan commitments, this has gone up quite a bit over the last several years. A cut of one billion dollars is hardly going to destroy the Canadian Forces.
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.
:rolleyes:
Given our Afghanistan expenditures, the expenses for the CF have increased substantially the last few years.
I'm sure if you want to do some research, you can find some fault in how Canada funds the CF. It's a shame you haven't done so in your post however. :(
I don't need to do any research to point out the absurdity in "Gosh, we spend $21 billion, so a cut of $1 billion is hardly going to destroy anything!"
A 5% cut to the budget is drastic. It is a major reduction in spending, and you don't have to do any research to know that the standard refrain of budget cutters that THIS cut will only cut the magical deadweight and "inefficiency" leaving the core mission unaffected is of course standard bullshit.
If you want to cut the Canadian military by a huge amount, just have the balls to say that is what you are doing, rather than pretend like it is not really much of a cut at all.
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?
:rolleyes:
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.
Quote from: Barrister on October 05, 2011, 11:09:45 PM
Quote from: Habbaku on October 05, 2011, 11:03:53 PM
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. :hug:
Canada should just disband their armed forces and pay 5% of the US defense budget. Win-win.
Quote from: Habbaku on October 05, 2011, 11:12:40 PM
Quote from: Barrister on October 05, 2011, 11:09:45 PM
Quote from: Habbaku on October 05, 2011, 11:03:53 PM
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. :hug:
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...
Quote from: Barrister on October 05, 2011, 11:12:25 PM
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.
Quote from: Barrister on October 05, 2011, 11:17:16 PM
Quote from: Habbaku on October 05, 2011, 11:12:40 PM
Quote from: Barrister on October 05, 2011, 11:09:45 PM
Quote from: Habbaku on October 05, 2011, 11:03:53 PM
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. :hug:
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.
Quote from: Berkut on October 05, 2011, 11:23:17 PM
Quote from: Barrister on October 05, 2011, 11:17:16 PM
Quote from: Habbaku on October 05, 2011, 11:12:40 PM
Quote from: Barrister on October 05, 2011, 11:09:45 PM
Quote from: Habbaku on October 05, 2011, 11:03:53 PM
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. :hug:
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.
Quote from: Zoupa on October 05, 2011, 11:41:46 PMSo 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.
Quote from: Barrister on October 05, 2011, 11:12:25 PM
:rolleyes:
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?
Quote from: Berkut on October 05, 2011, 10:57:47 PM
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.
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?
Quote from: Berkut on October 05, 2011, 11:21:48 PM
Quote from: Barrister on October 05, 2011, 11:12:25 PM
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.
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.
Quote from: Neil on October 05, 2011, 02:57:29 PM
I don't care about any of that.
yes, you're not one to be swayed by facts.
Quote from: crazy canuck on October 05, 2011, 03:06:19 PM
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.
Quote from: Razgovory on October 05, 2011, 04:44:11 PM
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.
Quote from: Valmy on October 05, 2011, 03:12:43 PM
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.
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.
Quote from: Berkut on October 05, 2011, 10:57:47 PM
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.
Quote from: Berkut on October 05, 2011, 11:08:59 PM
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.
.
Quote from: Malthus on October 06, 2011, 08:01:54 AM
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.
Quote from: viper37 on October 06, 2011, 10:33:27 AM
Quote from: Razgovory on October 05, 2011, 04:44:11 PM
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.
Quote from: Razgovory on October 06, 2011, 10:50:33 AM
Quote from: viper37 on October 06, 2011, 10:33:27 AM
Quote from: Razgovory on October 05, 2011, 04:44:11 PM
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?
Quote from: viper37 on October 06, 2011, 10:31:18 AM
Quote from: crazy canuck on October 05, 2011, 03:06:19 PM
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.
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.
Quote from: Grey Fox on October 06, 2011, 11:09:43 AM
Quote from: Razgovory on October 06, 2011, 10:50:33 AM
Quote from: viper37 on October 06, 2011, 10:33:27 AM
Quote from: Razgovory on October 05, 2011, 04:44:11 PM
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.
CC post 2 times. One I disagree with the other am in complete agreement.
Damn it, stop being so polirazing(sp?).
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.
Quote from: Razgovory on October 06, 2011, 11:30:28 AM
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.
Quote from: Grey Fox on October 06, 2011, 11:30:09 AM
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. :D
Quote from: Grey Fox on October 06, 2011, 11:36:34 AM
Quote from: Razgovory on October 06, 2011, 11:30:28 AM
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.
Quote from: Grey Fox on October 06, 2011, 11:09:43 AM
Quote from: Razgovory on October 06, 2011, 10:50:33 AM
Quote from: viper37 on October 06, 2011, 10:33:27 AM
Quote from: Razgovory on October 05, 2011, 04:44:11 PM
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".
Quote from: Razgovory on October 06, 2011, 10:50:33 AM
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.
Quote from: crazy canuck on October 06, 2011, 11:26:35 AM
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. :)
Quote from: crazy canuck on October 06, 2011, 11:23:53 AM
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.
Quote from: MadImmortalMan on October 06, 2011, 01:05:15 PM
Quote from: crazy canuck on October 06, 2011, 11:26:35 AM
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.
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.
I'll buy a beer for the guys on the HMCS Vancouver anytime. I owe 'em. :cool: :ph34r: :cool:
How about just the guys from Vancouver?
Quote from: crazy canuck on October 06, 2011, 04:08:07 PM
How about just the guys from Vancouver?
:( Funds would be lacking.
Quote from: viper37 on October 06, 2011, 01:03:15 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on October 06, 2011, 10:50:33 AM
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.
:lol: 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.
Quote from: viper37 on October 06, 2011, 10:31:18 AM
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.
Quote from: Razgovory on October 06, 2011, 04:21:26 PM
:lol: 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.
Quote from: Neil on October 06, 2011, 04:45:23 PM
Quote from: viper37 on October 06, 2011, 10:31:18 AM
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?
Quote from: viper37 on October 06, 2011, 04:53:33 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on October 06, 2011, 04:21:26 PM
:lol: 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.
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.
Quote from: Jacob on October 06, 2011, 05:36:38 PM
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.
Quote from: AnchorClanker on October 06, 2011, 03:59:10 PM
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. :P
Quote from: viper37 on October 06, 2011, 04:55:45 PM
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.
Quote from: Jacob on October 06, 2011, 05:36:38 PM
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...
:D Yay. I dig the Anglophone Alliance.
Quote from: AnchorClanker on October 06, 2011, 05:49:00 PM
:D Yay. I dig the Anglophone Alliance.
Reciprocity is our way.
Quote from: crazy canuck on October 06, 2011, 05:48:23 PMAnd if the Treaty of Paris did not cede that territory would you still call it a conquest?
That depends on whether they left afterwards.
QuoteA 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.
QuotePut 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.
Quote from: Jacob on October 06, 2011, 05:36:38 PM
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.
Quote from: Malthus on October 06, 2011, 08:01:54 AM
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.
$21 billion isn't insignificant though.
Quote from: crazy canuck on October 06, 2011, 11:26:35 AM
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.
Quote from: Neil on October 06, 2011, 08:55:27 PM
$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.
Quote from: crazy canuck on October 06, 2011, 11:26:35 AM
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.
Quote
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?
Quote from: Berkut on October 06, 2011, 08:59:31 PM
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.
Quote$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.
Quote from: Berkut on October 06, 2011, 08:56:09 PM
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.
In what way? The missiles/bombers are coming for you...
I think Berkut hates anyone he perceives as a "free rider".
Quote from: Razgovory on October 06, 2011, 10:18:23 PM
I think Berkut hates anyone he perceives as a "free rider".
I think you have narrowed it down way too far.
Quote from: sbr on October 06, 2011, 10:21:43 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on October 06, 2011, 10:18:23 PM
I think Berkut hates anyone he perceives as a "free rider".
I think you have narrowed it down way too far.
I am always looking at the root problem.
Quote from: crazy canuck on October 06, 2011, 10:14:51 PM
Quote from: Berkut on October 06, 2011, 08:56:09 PM
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.
In what way? The missiles/bombers are coming for you...
Of course they are coming for you as well. As is all the other unpleasant shit in the world that interferes with our cushy standard of living.
Quote from: Razgovory on October 06, 2011, 10:18:23 PM
I think Berkut hates anyone he perceives as a "free rider".
As far as free riders go, the Canadians are way, way, WAY down the list when it comes to the military.
Quote from: Berkut on October 06, 2011, 11:24:46 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on October 06, 2011, 10:18:23 PM
I think Berkut hates anyone he perceives as a "free rider".
As far as free riders go, the Canadians are way, way, WAY down the list when it comes to the military.
Who else is up there?
I've written about the cuts and they seem to be very cautious compared with those of other NATO members and unlikely to affect front-line operations. They're mainly about cutting and consolidating the extra civil service, full-time reservists, contractors and consultants that were brought in to support operations in Afghanistan.
QuoteBetween 2004 and 2010 the combined workforce of DND and the Canadian Forces jumped 18 per cent, or by more than 20,000 people. By March 2010, the departments employed 144,744 people, including 67,857 in the regular forces, 35,665 reservists and 29,348 civilians. The number of civilian personnel grew three times faster over that period than did personnel in the regular forces, the report found.
Quote from: Razgovory on October 06, 2011, 05:42:25 PM
Well the French ceded large amounts of territory to Spain the year before.
Either they were losing it to the British, or they were giving it to Spain. The territory was already lost.
Quote from: crazy canuck on October 06, 2011, 05:48:23 PM
Put it this way if that was the only land the British occupied during the war the French would have won...
And had it not been occupied, the territory would not have been given to the British. If it had been given anyway, then it wouldn't have been a conquest. Like Louisiana given to Spain and back to France and sold to the Americans. Not a conquest.
But fall of Quebec = Conquest. And it's called "War of Conquest" by historians, as well as French&Indian war.
English College in Montreal (http://faculty.marianopolis.edu/c.belanger/quebechistory/encyclopedia/sevenyearswar-frenchandindianwar-thewaroftheconquest.htm)
Wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/War_of_Conquest)
Quote from: Brazen on October 07, 2011, 06:01:34 AM
I've written about the cuts and they seem to be very cautious compared with those of other NATO members and unlikely to affect front-line operations. They're mainly about cutting and consolidating the extra civil service, full-time reservists, contractors and consultants that were brought in to support operations in Afghanistan.
QuoteBetween 2004 and 2010 the combined workforce of DND and the Canadian Forces jumped 18 per cent, or by more than 20,000 people. By March 2010, the departments employed 144,744 people, including 67,857 in the regular forces, 35,665 reservists and 29,348 civilians. The number of civilian personnel grew three times faster over that period than did personnel in the regular forces, the report found.
try explaining that to Berkut again please. It seems impossible to make any kind of cuts without affecting the end service. Rationalization is not of this world. Corporations and government always operate at peak effciency and can never eve reduce their amount of spending without severly affecting their operations.
Quote from: viper37 on October 07, 2011, 09:29:20 AM
Quote from: Brazen on October 07, 2011, 06:01:34 AM
I've written about the cuts and they seem to be very cautious compared with those of other NATO members and unlikely to affect front-line operations. They're mainly about cutting and consolidating the extra civil service, full-time reservists, contractors and consultants that were brought in to support operations in Afghanistan.
QuoteBetween 2004 and 2010 the combined workforce of DND and the Canadian Forces jumped 18 per cent, or by more than 20,000 people. By March 2010, the departments employed 144,744 people, including 67,857 in the regular forces, 35,665 reservists and 29,348 civilians. The number of civilian personnel grew three times faster over that period than did personnel in the regular forces, the report found.
try explaining that to Berkut again please. It seems impossible to make any kind of cuts without affecting the end service. Rationalization is not of this world. Corporations and government always operate at peak effciency and can never eve reduce their amount of spending without severly affecting their operations.
Oh please. Government is citing the old "Oh, we can just cut waste and inefficiency!" mantra. And you are going to just swallow it whole? Whatever.
Jesus, read her comment. We are going to cut the people brought in to support operations in Afghanistan, but this won't affect front line operations! Huh? How does that work?
Why where they brought in to support front line operations if NOT having them doesn't affect front line operations?
And I've worked in many a corporation that has laid off people while assuring everyone remaining that everyone being laid off was really just waste and it won't affect anyone's ability to do their job or meet their deliverables. And yeah, that is about 99% bullshit then as well.
Quote from: Berkut on October 07, 2011, 09:46:39 AM
Jesus, read her comment. We are going to cut the people brought in to support operations in Afghanistan, but this won't affect front line operations! Huh? How does that work?
Because Canada is fully withdrawing from Afghanistan by the end of 2011.
The plan is aimed at making savings over several years, not everything immediately.
Plus it is just that, one proposed plan, not a policy.
QuoteDefence Minister Peter MacKay said that Leslie's report was being treated as a useful source of information but would not be prescriptive.
"It is but one stream of information," MacKay told Postmedia News. "Keep in mind that we have numerous sources of information that we rely on as we go through this transformation, not the least of which is the senior [military] leadership."
Quote from: Brazen on October 07, 2011, 09:53:25 AM
Quote from: Berkut on October 07, 2011, 09:46:39 AM
Jesus, read her comment. We are going to cut the people brought in to support operations in Afghanistan, but this won't affect front line operations! Huh? How does that work?
Because Canada is fully withdrawing from Afghanistan by the end of 2011.
The plan is aimed at making savings over several years, not everything immediately.
Plus it is just that, one proposed plan, not a policy.
QuoteDefence Minister Peter MacKay said that Leslie's report was being treated as a useful source of information but would not be prescriptive.
"It is but one stream of information," MacKay told Postmedia News. "Keep in mind that we have numerous sources of information that we rely on as we go through this transformation, not the least of which is the senior [military] leadership."
So what front line operations will Canada be involved in that the cuts would not impact then?
And like I've said about 4 times now - if they want to cut, cut away. They ramped up spending, now if they want to ramp it back down, fine. The only objection I had was to the idea that a 5% cut was trivial, because it was only 5%. Canada doesn't spend much as it is, even if it is more than they did before, and cutting 5% of that is not trivial.
Quote from: Berkut on October 07, 2011, 09:58:17 AM
Quote from: Brazen on October 07, 2011, 09:53:25 AM
Quote from: Berkut on October 07, 2011, 09:46:39 AM
Jesus, read her comment. We are going to cut the people brought in to support operations in Afghanistan, but this won't affect front line operations! Huh? How does that work?
Because Canada is fully withdrawing from Afghanistan by the end of 2011.
The plan is aimed at making savings over several years, not everything immediately.
Plus it is just that, one proposed plan, not a policy.
QuoteDefence Minister Peter MacKay said that Leslie's report was being treated as a useful source of information but would not be prescriptive.
"It is but one stream of information," MacKay told Postmedia News. "Keep in mind that we have numerous sources of information that we rely on as we go through this transformation, not the least of which is the senior [military] leadership."
So what front line operations will Canada be involved in that the cuts would not impact then?
And like I've said about 4 times now - if they want to cut, cut away. They ramped up spending, now if they want to ramp it back down, fine. The only objection I had was to the idea that a 5% cut was trivial, because it was only 5%. Canada doesn't spend much as it is, even if it is more than they did before, and cutting 5% of that is not trivial.
Huh? They ramped up spending because of Afganistan; they plan on ramping down spending when they leave Afganistan.
What's the source of confusion here?
Quote from: Malthus on October 07, 2011, 10:12:13 AM
Quote from: Berkut on October 07, 2011, 09:58:17 AM
Quote from: Brazen on October 07, 2011, 09:53:25 AM
Quote from: Berkut on October 07, 2011, 09:46:39 AM
Jesus, read her comment. We are going to cut the people brought in to support operations in Afghanistan, but this won't affect front line operations! Huh? How does that work?
Because Canada is fully withdrawing from Afghanistan by the end of 2011.
The plan is aimed at making savings over several years, not everything immediately.
Plus it is just that, one proposed plan, not a policy.
QuoteDefence Minister Peter MacKay said that Leslie's report was being treated as a useful source of information but would not be prescriptive.
"It is but one stream of information," MacKay told Postmedia News. "Keep in mind that we have numerous sources of information that we rely on as we go through this transformation, not the least of which is the senior [military] leadership."
So what front line operations will Canada be involved in that the cuts would not impact then?
And like I've said about 4 times now - if they want to cut, cut away. They ramped up spending, now if they want to ramp it back down, fine. The only objection I had was to the idea that a 5% cut was trivial, because it was only 5%. Canada doesn't spend much as it is, even if it is more than they did before, and cutting 5% of that is not trivial.
Huh? They ramped up spending because of Afganistan; they plan on ramping down spending when they leave Afganistan.
What's the source of confusion here?
I don't know - which part are you confused by?
Quote from: Berkut on October 07, 2011, 10:29:04 AM
I don't know - which part are you confused by?
Why you are arguing furiously about a non-issue.
Clearly, if they are ending a mission, and plan to cut the spending they were spending on that mission, not spending the money they no longer need to spend for a mission they no longer have isn't going to have any significant impact on operations.
Quote from: Berkut on October 06, 2011, 11:20:16 PM
Quote from: crazy canuck on October 06, 2011, 10:14:51 PM
Quote from: Berkut on October 06, 2011, 08:56:09 PM
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.
In what way? The missiles/bombers are coming for you...
Of course they are coming for you as well. As is all the other unpleasant shit in the world that interferes with our cushy standard of living.
I suppose if it makes you feel better to blame others for the shitty position your country is in you have to belief this sort of nonsense.
Quote from: crazy canuck on October 07, 2011, 10:36:29 AM
Quote from: Berkut on October 06, 2011, 11:20:16 PM
Quote from: crazy canuck on October 06, 2011, 10:14:51 PM
Quote from: Berkut on October 06, 2011, 08:56:09 PM
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.
In what way? The missiles/bombers are coming for you...
Of course they are coming for you as well. As is all the other unpleasant shit in the world that interferes with our cushy standard of living.
I suppose if it makes you feel better to blame others for the shitty position your country is in you have to belief this sort of nonsense.
:lmfao:
That sentence is an impressive construct of strawman piled onto ad hom stacked on top of some just plain old insecurity. It's ok CC, we really do appreciate all that Canada does to help out.
Quote from: Malthus on October 07, 2011, 10:34:02 AM
Quote from: Berkut on October 07, 2011, 10:29:04 AM
I don't know - which part are you confused by?
Why you are arguing furiously about a non-issue.
I am not. What is bizarre is why all the Canucks are feeling all put out that I objected to BBs comment that cutting 5% by definition is immaterial, because it is just 5%.
Quote
Clearly, if they are ending a mission, and plan to cut the spending they were spending on that mission, not spending the money they no longer need to spend for a mission they no longer have isn't going to have any significant impact on operations.
And? I still don't see how this is confusing you.
Quote from: Berkut on October 07, 2011, 10:40:13 AM
Quote from: Malthus on October 07, 2011, 10:34:02 AM
Quote from: Berkut on October 07, 2011, 10:29:04 AM
I don't know - which part are you confused by?
Why you are arguing furiously about a non-issue.
I am not. What is bizarre is why all the Canucks are feeling all put out that I objected to BBs comment that cutting 5% by definition is immaterial, because it is just 5%.
Quote
Clearly, if they are ending a mission, and plan to cut the spending they were spending on that mission, not spending the money they no longer need to spend for a mission they no longer have isn't going to have any significant impact on operations.
And? I still don't see how this is confusing you.
Ramping down spending that has been ramped up for a paticular purpose isn't a "material" cut.
When people think of a "material" cut, they think of whether or not a cut actually impacts the service provided. This does not, by definition.
From your previous post:
QuoteOh please. Government is citing the old "Oh, we can just cut waste and inefficiency!" mantra. And you are going to just swallow it whole? Whatever.
Jesus, read her comment. We are going to cut the people brought in to support operations in Afghanistan, but this won't affect front line operations! Huh? How does that work?
Berkut, repent my son.
Canada's Military is awesome & you know it.
Quote from: Malthus on October 07, 2011, 10:45:10 AM
Quote from: Berkut on October 07, 2011, 10:40:13 AM
Quote from: Malthus on October 07, 2011, 10:34:02 AM
Quote from: Berkut on October 07, 2011, 10:29:04 AM
I don't know - which part are you confused by?
Why you are arguing furiously about a non-issue.
I am not. What is bizarre is why all the Canucks are feeling all put out that I objected to BBs comment that cutting 5% by definition is immaterial, because it is just 5%.
Quote
Clearly, if they are ending a mission, and plan to cut the spending they were spending on that mission, not spending the money they no longer need to spend for a mission they no longer have isn't going to have any significant impact on operations.
And? I still don't see how this is confusing you.
Ramping down spending that has been ramped up for a paticular purpose isn't a "material" cut.
Of course it is. If the US decides to buy new bombers, and then later on decides they don't want them anymore, and hence cuts the funding for them, that is still a cut, and still means the US won't be able to do something that they planned on being able to do, or could do previously if those bombers were to replace existing capability.
Just because Canada used to not be able to support a deployment like Afghanistan, and has decided that in the future they don't want to be able to support that kind of deployment (or are willing to eat the ramp up costs at that time rather than simply maintain them), it is still a cut, and is still materially impacting their ability to project power.
WHICH IS FINE, AND NOT UNREASONABLE.
But it is most certainly a cut. A 5% cut in funding for the military is a pretty damn big reduction, especially when you weren't spending much to begin with. That has been my only point throughout the entire angst shown over my reaction to BBs initial "$1 billion is practically nothing, since we spend $21 billion!".
Quote from: Grey Fox on October 07, 2011, 10:51:10 AM
Berkut, repent my son.
Canada's Military is awesome & you know it.
Naw he has to blame US overspending on something - cant possibly be the US.
I love how $21 billion, or to put it another way, $21,000,000,000 becomes "you weren't spending much to begin with". :lol:
Quote from: crazy canuck on October 07, 2011, 10:51:56 AM
Quote from: Grey Fox on October 07, 2011, 10:51:10 AM
Berkut, repent my son.
Canada's Military is awesome & you know it.
Naw he has to blame US overspending on something - cant possibly be the US.
Who peed in your oatmeal?
Seriously, now you are just flat out lying about what I've said. I've never once blamed US "overspending" on Canada, nor have I even brought up US spending in relation to this conversation, nor do I think what the US spends on defense has anything to do with Canada at all.
So how about you just go fuck yourself? Are you channeling Marty or something?
Quote from: Berkut on October 07, 2011, 10:55:11 AM
Quote from: crazy canuck on October 07, 2011, 10:51:56 AM
Quote from: Grey Fox on October 07, 2011, 10:51:10 AM
Berkut, repent my son.
Canada's Military is awesome & you know it.
Naw he has to blame US overspending on something - cant possibly be the US.
Who peed in your oatmeal?
Seriously, now you are just flat out lying about what I've said. I've never once blamed US "overspending" on Canada, nor have I even brought up US spending in relation to this conversation, nor do I think what the US spends on defense has anything to do with Canada at all.
So how about you just go fuck yourself? Are you channeling Marty or something?
You're either upset about something, or trolling pretty hard in this thread... :hmm:
Quote from: Barrister on October 07, 2011, 10:54:37 AM
I love how $21 billion, or to put it another way, $21,000,000,000 becomes "you weren't spending much to begin with". :lol:
It isn't that much at all. Something like 1.5% of your GDP, right?
Is 4.7% of GDP a lot?
Quote from: Berkut on October 07, 2011, 10:55:11 AM
Seriously, now you are just flat out lying about what I've said. I've never once blamed US "overspending" on Canada
Ah so all those seemingly condescending comments about the US paying for our defence so we could enjoy our standard of living were really meant to suggest that you enjoy the fact that you pay for us. Got it.
Quote from: Barrister on October 07, 2011, 10:56:18 AM
Quote from: Berkut on October 07, 2011, 10:55:11 AM
Quote from: crazy canuck on October 07, 2011, 10:51:56 AM
Quote from: Grey Fox on October 07, 2011, 10:51:10 AM
Berkut, repent my son.
Canada's Military is awesome & you know it.
Naw he has to blame US overspending on something - cant possibly be the US.
Who peed in your oatmeal?
Seriously, now you are just flat out lying about what I've said. I've never once blamed US "overspending" on Canada, nor have I even brought up US spending in relation to this conversation, nor do I think what the US spends on defense has anything to do with Canada at all.
So how about you just go fuck yourself? Are you channeling Marty or something?
You're either upset about something, or trolling pretty hard in this thread... :hmm:
Right, so I guess that makes it ok for CC to just make shit up about what I said. Nice to see where you stand on integrity Beebs. CC is your tribemate, so I guess he can lie about what I say and you have his back. Nice.
I am neither upset or trolling. Just pointing out that 5% is not trivial.
Quote from: Berkut on October 07, 2011, 10:57:54 AM
Quote from: Barrister on October 07, 2011, 10:56:18 AM
Quote from: Berkut on October 07, 2011, 10:55:11 AM
Quote from: crazy canuck on October 07, 2011, 10:51:56 AM
Quote from: Grey Fox on October 07, 2011, 10:51:10 AM
Berkut, repent my son.
Canada's Military is awesome & you know it.
Naw he has to blame US overspending on something - cant possibly be the US.
Who peed in your oatmeal?
Seriously, now you are just flat out lying about what I've said. I've never once blamed US "overspending" on Canada, nor have I even brought up US spending in relation to this conversation, nor do I think what the US spends on defense has anything to do with Canada at all.
So how about you just go fuck yourself? Are you channeling Marty or something?
You're either upset about something, or trolling pretty hard in this thread... :hmm:
Right, so I guess that makes it ok for CC to just make shit up about what I said. Nice to see where you stand on integrity Beebs. CC is your tribemate, so I guess he can lie about what I say and you have his back. Nice.
I am neither upset or trolling. Just pointing out that 5% is not trivial.
Poor Berk, you tried the usual US shtick to "we pay for you God Dammit" and it didnt work.
Quote from: Berkut on October 07, 2011, 10:51:34 AM
Of course it is. If the US decides to buy new bombers, and then later on decides they don't want them anymore, and hence cuts the funding for them, that is still a cut, and still means the US won't be able to do something that they planned on being able to do, or could do previously if those bombers were to replace existing capability.
Just because Canada used to not be able to support a deployment like Afghanistan, and has decided that in the future they don't want to be able to support that kind of deployment (or are willing to eat the ramp up costs at that time rather than simply maintain them), it is still a cut, and is still materially impacting their ability to project power.
WHICH IS FINE, AND NOT UNREASONABLE.
But it is most certainly a cut. A 5% cut in funding for the military is a pretty damn big reduction, especially when you weren't spending much to begin with. That has been my only point throughout the entire angst shown over my reaction to BBs initial "$1 billion is practically nothing, since we spend $21 billion!".
Bombers are unlike a specific mission such as Afganistan, and the difference shows why you are wrong.
Afganistan is an ongoing war. Spending is earmarked for that alone, and it is obviously going to be higher than spending when a country is *not* involved in a war.
You seem to be of the opinion that spending on a war ought to be maintained in peacetime, just in case another war happens along - or rather, that if such spending is *not* maintained, that is some sort "material" cut which could "affect front line operations".
Bombers, in contrast, are a weapons system, not necessarily particular to a particular conflict. Indeed, if they are cut, "the US won't be able to do something that they planned on being able to do, or could do previously if those bombers were to replace existing capability".
Canada is simply returning to its pre-war state. It has exactly the capacity it had before.
Quote from: Berkut on October 07, 2011, 10:57:54 AM
Quote from: Barrister on October 07, 2011, 10:56:18 AM
Quote from: Berkut on October 07, 2011, 10:55:11 AM
Quote from: crazy canuck on October 07, 2011, 10:51:56 AM
Quote from: Grey Fox on October 07, 2011, 10:51:10 AM
Berkut, repent my son.
Canada's Military is awesome & you know it.
Naw he has to blame US overspending on something - cant possibly be the US.
Who peed in your oatmeal?
Seriously, now you are just flat out lying about what I've said. I've never once blamed US "overspending" on Canada, nor have I even brought up US spending in relation to this conversation, nor do I think what the US spends on defense has anything to do with Canada at all.
So how about you just go fuck yourself? Are you channeling Marty or something?
You're either upset about something, or trolling pretty hard in this thread... :hmm:
Right, so I guess that makes it ok for CC to just make shit up about what I said. Nice to see where you stand on integrity Beebs. CC is your tribemate, so I guess he can lie about what I say and you have his back. Nice.
I am neither upset or trolling. Just pointing out that 5% is not trivial.
Oh Good Grief.
Quote from: Malthus on October 07, 2011, 11:02:47 AM
Quote from: Berkut on October 07, 2011, 10:51:34 AM
Of course it is. If the US decides to buy new bombers, and then later on decides they don't want them anymore, and hence cuts the funding for them, that is still a cut, and still means the US won't be able to do something that they planned on being able to do, or could do previously if those bombers were to replace existing capability.
Just because Canada used to not be able to support a deployment like Afghanistan, and has decided that in the future they don't want to be able to support that kind of deployment (or are willing to eat the ramp up costs at that time rather than simply maintain them), it is still a cut, and is still materially impacting their ability to project power.
WHICH IS FINE, AND NOT UNREASONABLE.
But it is most certainly a cut. A 5% cut in funding for the military is a pretty damn big reduction, especially when you weren't spending much to begin with. That has been my only point throughout the entire angst shown over my reaction to BBs initial "$1 billion is practically nothing, since we spend $21 billion!".
Bombers are unlike a specific mission such as Afganistan, and the difference shows why you are wrong.
Afganistan is an ongoing war. Spending is earmarked for that alone, and it is obviously going to be higher than spending when a country is *not* involved in a war.
You seem to be of the opinion that spending on a war ought to be maintained in peacetime, just in case another war happens along - or rather, that if such spending is *not* maintained, that is some sort "material" cut which could "affect front line operations".
No, I am of the opinion that cutting a billion from a 21 billion dollar defense budget is not trivial. Where did you get the idea that I thought spending on a war ought to be maintained? Where did I say anything, in fact, about what Canada "ought" to do?
I think you must be reading what CC says I am saying, rather than what I am actually saying.
Or Berk, you are just forgetting what you said...
Quote from: crazy canuck on October 07, 2011, 11:17:03 AM
Or Berk, you are just forgetting what you said...
Seems possible. Could you point out where I said that it is Canada's fault that the US has over-spent on their military?
I've been wrong before, but I rather suspect I would remember saying something that stupid.
Quote from: Berkut on October 07, 2011, 11:19:52 AM
Quote from: crazy canuck on October 07, 2011, 11:17:03 AM
Or Berk, you are just forgetting what you said...
Seems possible. Could you point out where I said that it is Canada's fault that the US has over-spent on their military?
I've been wrong before, but I rather suspect I would remember saying something that stupid.
Well you have said a number of stupid things in this thread. Such as the fact that the US pays for our defence. I have already raised the issue of the implication of your statement. You have evidently forgotten that already.
Quote from: crazy canuck on October 07, 2011, 11:46:59 AM
Quote from: Berkut on October 07, 2011, 11:19:52 AM
Quote from: crazy canuck on October 07, 2011, 11:17:03 AM
Or Berk, you are just forgetting what you said...
Seems possible. Could you point out where I said that it is Canada's fault that the US has over-spent on their military?
I've been wrong before, but I rather suspect I would remember saying something that stupid.
Well you have said a number of stupid things in this thread. Such as the fact that the US pays for our defence. I have already raised the issue of the implication of your statement. You have evidently forgotten that already.
Sorry, could you point out where I said that it is Canada's fault that the US has over-spent on their military?
Or just continue to confirm that you are a liar by non-responses and "implications".
:zzz
Quote from: Berkut on October 07, 2011, 11:49:09 AM
Or just continue to confirm that you are a liar by non-responses and "implications".
:rolleyes:
Quote from: crazy canuck on October 07, 2011, 11:52:06 AM
Quote from: Berkut on October 07, 2011, 11:49:09 AM
Or just continue to confirm that you are a liar by non-responses and "implications".
:rolleyes:
Thanks, appreciate your honesty in this at least. :rolleyes: x10.
You guys should give Berk more respect. he spends billions protecting us ;)
Quote from: Malthus on October 07, 2011, 11:02:47 AM
Canada is simply returning to its pre-war state. It has exactly the capacity it had before.
actually, more than we did before, despite the cuts. The new equipment is there (uniforms, trucks, rifles, helos, and soon the F35 to replace the CF-18)
Berkut - what purpose does accusing everyone of being "dishonest" serve in this particular conversation? Do you think that it helps get the conversation going? Or are you merely trying to provoke a reaction from CC or myself?
From appearances, he's not "accusing" CC of being dishonest. CC is being dishonest.
I'm sure CC will come along any second now and show where Berkut claimed Canada was responsible for US overspending, though.
Quote from: Barrister on October 07, 2011, 12:24:39 PM
Berkut - what purpose does accusing everyone of being "dishonest" serve in this particular conversation? Do you think that it helps get the conversation going? Or are you merely trying to provoke a reaction from CC or myself?
I think pointing out when people bald faced lie is purposeful regardless of the discussion. Certainly spouting crap like "Berkut blames Canada for US over-spending!" does not advance the discussion - lack of intellectual integrity never does.
What I wonder is what purpose you have in backing up someone you know is lying about what was said? I am surprised you find that kind of allegiance worth it. It is rather bizarre that you would ask me what purpose there is in calling out someone lying, while you do not comment at all on the dishonesty itself! You find me calling out his dishonesty more problematic than the dishonesty to begin with. I suppose it is the standard human failing that lying for YOUR cause is ok?
That's not what happened Berkut. Don't lie.
Quote from: Jacob on October 07, 2011, 12:35:51 PM
That's not what happened Berkut. Don't lie.
Good one.
Quote from: Berkut on October 07, 2011, 12:32:54 PM
Quote from: Barrister on October 07, 2011, 12:24:39 PM
Berkut - what purpose does accusing everyone of being "dishonest" serve in this particular conversation? Do you think that it helps get the conversation going? Or are you merely trying to provoke a reaction from CC or myself?
I think pointing out when people bald faced lie is purposeful regardless of the discussion. Certainly spouting crap like "Berkut blames Canada for US over-spending!" does not advance the discussion - lack of intellectual integrity never does.
What I wonder is what purpose you have in backing up someone you know is lying about what was said? I am surprised you find that kind of allegiance worth it. It is rather bizarre that you would ask me what purpose there is in calling out someone lying, while you do not comment at all on the dishonesty itself! You find me calling out his dishonesty more problematic than the dishonesty to begin with. I suppose it is the standard human failing that lying for YOUR cause is ok?
You think its purposeful? What purpose is that?
Being untruthful requires you to both know someone's mind, and an accusation of untruthfulness is generally found to be a very serious one.
I might humbly suggest that rather than accuse Crazy Canuck of being a liar, you just tone it down and say "I think you're mistaken - I didn't say any such thing".
It's the kind of tone that might allow the conversation to continue, rather than devolve into a series of personal attacks.
Where's the fun in that? :D
Quote from: Habbaku on October 07, 2011, 12:29:42 PM
I'm sure CC will come along any second now and show where Berkut claimed Canada was responsible for US overspending, though.
Since I was critical of both you and Berk for the same remarks this post is not entirely surprising.
Quote from: Barrister on October 07, 2011, 12:40:07 PM
Quote from: Berkut on October 07, 2011, 12:32:54 PM
Quote from: Barrister on October 07, 2011, 12:24:39 PM
Berkut - what purpose does accusing everyone of being "dishonest" serve in this particular conversation? Do you think that it helps get the conversation going? Or are you merely trying to provoke a reaction from CC or myself?
I think pointing out when people bald faced lie is purposeful regardless of the discussion. Certainly spouting crap like "Berkut blames Canada for US over-spending!" does not advance the discussion - lack of intellectual integrity never does.
What I wonder is what purpose you have in backing up someone you know is lying about what was said? I am surprised you find that kind of allegiance worth it. It is rather bizarre that you would ask me what purpose there is in calling out someone lying, while you do not comment at all on the dishonesty itself! You find me calling out his dishonesty more problematic than the dishonesty to begin with. I suppose it is the standard human failing that lying for YOUR cause is ok?
You think its purposeful? What purpose is that?
I don't know, that is why I asked you what the purpose was in ignoring CCs dishonesty while appearing to be concerned over me calling him on it. I can specualte, of course (and I have - standard human failing of excusing those who are perceived to be on your side), but I don't pretend to understand why really.
It seems rather counter to your apparent stated desire to keep the conversation at a constructive level.
Quote
Being untruthful requires you to both know someone's mind, and an accusation of untruthfulness is generally found to be a very serious one.
It is rather serious. I don't need to know CCs mind to know that I never made the claims he said I made though. If I am incorrect, and in fact he THOUGHT I said those things, he could clear that right up by simply saying that he somehow thought I had said such a thing. I've asked him rather clearly to show where I said it was Canada's fault that the US over-spends, and he elected to not take that opportunity to clear it up.
Quote
I might humbly suggest that rather than accuse Crazy Canuck of being a liar, you just tone it down and say "I think you're mistaken - I didn't say any such thing".
I might not so humbly suggest that if you really care about the tone of the discussion, you not back up people who are saying things that are clearly not true just because they happen to be on what you perceive as your side, and apply that humble advice to those who are willing to willfully distort what is being said.
Quote
It's the kind of tone that might allow the conversation to continue, rather than devolve into a series of personal attacks.
Actually, it is the tone of CCs that causes the conversation to devolve. You are looking to shoot the messenger. Read the thread BB, he is the one playing the personal bullshit game about my motives.
Quote from: Beebs fellow Canadian who can do no wrong
"Naw he has to blame US overspending on something - cant possibly be the US."
"I suppose if it makes you feel better to blame others for the shitty position your country is in you have to belief this sort of nonsense. "
"Habbuku and Berkut can stuff the self serving implication that somehow the US is doing us a favour."
"Habbs and Berkut can save their "we are there to protect you" bs. "
Note that at no time have Habs or Berkut claimed that the "US is there to protect you". That quote is completely made up.
And of course he completely ignores posts where I explictly state the exact opposite of what he claims I have said. Sorry, not willing to buy into the idea that it is a "mistake".
If you care about the tone of the debate, you are talking to the wrong person.
Quote from: crazy canuck on October 07, 2011, 01:07:34 PM
Quote from: Habbaku on October 07, 2011, 12:29:42 PM
I'm sure CC will come along any second now and show where Berkut claimed Canada was responsible for US overspending, though.
Since I was critical of both you and Berk for the same remarks this post is not entirely surprising.
Funny thing is that you are critical of us for remarks we never actually made.
Berkut: I claim A!
CC: ZOMG BERKUT SAYS B!
Berkut: I never said B, I said A.
CC: ZOMG BERKUT SAYS B HE IS SUCH A JERK!
Berkut: Not only did I not say B, I am saying right now that I do not agree with B.
CC: BERKUT SAYS B! LETS HATE HIM!
Malthus: Wow, I cannot believe Berkut says B. What an asshole.
Berkut: I never said B. I don't agree with B. B is stupid.
CC: BERKUT SAID B! HAHA HE TEH STOOPID!
Berkut: Now you are just lying.
BB: Oh dear, I don't think you should call people liars Berk. It lowers the level of the conversation!
Berkut: You can all die in a fire now.
I suspected you wouldn't follow my advice, but I offered it all the same. -_-
Quote from: Berkut on October 07, 2011, 01:12:23 PM
Funny thing is that you are critical of us for remarks we never actually made.
I am not sure if you are being wilfilly blind because you are embarrassed - the best result. Or if you are just unable to appreciate the implications of the ridiculous statements you made earlier in the thread - the worst result.
In any event I am done with you in this thread.
Quote from: Barrister on October 07, 2011, 12:40:07 PM
It's the kind of tone that might allow the conversation to continue, rather than devolve into a series of personal attacks.
The mistake here was that it had already devolved into a series of personal attacks.
Yes, beat a hasty retreat when you cannot prove your false claims. Bravo.
Quote from: Habbaku on October 07, 2011, 01:16:27 PM
Yes, beat a hasty retreat when you cannot prove your false claims. Bravo.
Its too bad it wasn't a bit hastier.
Quote from: Barrister on October 07, 2011, 01:13:19 PM
I suspected you wouldn't follow my advice, but I offered it all the same. -_-
I actually did not suspect that you would show this level of intellectual "flexibility" when it comes to recognizing when someone on your own side is acting so dishonestly. I can honestly say I would have expected more from you. CC is doing his full on Marty impression, and you are basically cheering him on.
Quote from: Berkut on October 07, 2011, 01:20:37 PM
Quote from: Barrister on October 07, 2011, 01:13:19 PM
I suspected you wouldn't follow my advice, but I offered it all the same. -_-
I actually did not suspect that you would show this level of intellectual "flexibility" when it comes to recognizing when someone on your own side is acting so dishonestly. I can honestly say I would have expected more from you. CC is doing his full on Marty impression, and you are basically cheering him on.
I'm not biting Berk. Troll harder.
Beeb, why do you not call CC on his obvious shenanigans, yet proclaim Berkut is trolling?
I guess it could be that you expect more out of Berkut, which is certainly understandable.
Quote from: Habbaku on October 07, 2011, 01:27:28 PM
Beeb, why do you not call CC on his obvious shenanigans, yet proclaim Berkut is trolling?
I guess it could be that you expect more out of Berkut, which is certainly understandable.
*sniffs*
Nah, I don't care for this bait. Have anything else?
That's okay; you don't have to answer honest questions while ignoring CC's trolling. :)
Quote from: Barrister on October 07, 2011, 01:22:39 PM
Quote from: Berkut on October 07, 2011, 01:20:37 PM
Quote from: Barrister on October 07, 2011, 01:13:19 PM
I suspected you wouldn't follow my advice, but I offered it all the same. -_-
I actually did not suspect that you would show this level of intellectual "flexibility" when it comes to recognizing when someone on your own side is acting so dishonestly. I can honestly say I would have expected more from you. CC is doing his full on Marty impression, and you are basically cheering him on.
I'm not biting Berk. Troll harder.
Ahhh, so now not agreeing with you is trolling. Very nice.
CC lies and flings shit around like a monkey, and that is all good. Rah Rah crazy_
canuckBerkut does not agree with you that the problem is Berkut, and it must be because he is a troll.
Gotcha.
Quote from: Berkut on October 07, 2011, 09:46:39 AM
Jesus, read her comment. We are going to cut the people brought in to support operations in Afghanistan, but this won't affect front line operations! Huh? How does that work?
Why where they brought in to support front line operations if NOT having them doesn't affect front line operations?
Well, since there are no front line operations in Afghanistan anymore, they're not really needed, are they?
Quote from: Berkut on October 07, 2011, 01:30:08 PM
Quote from: Barrister on October 07, 2011, 01:22:39 PM
Quote from: Berkut on October 07, 2011, 01:20:37 PM
Quote from: Barrister on October 07, 2011, 01:13:19 PM
I suspected you wouldn't follow my advice, but I offered it all the same. -_-
I actually did not suspect that you would show this level of intellectual "flexibility" when it comes to recognizing when someone on your own side is acting so dishonestly. I can honestly say I would have expected more from you. CC is doing his full on Marty impression, and you are basically cheering him on.
I'm not biting Berk. Troll harder.
Ahhh, so now not agreeing with you is trolling. Very nice.
CC lies and flings shit around like a monkey, and that is all good. Rah Rah crazy_canuck
Berkut does not agree with you that the problem is Berkut, and it must be because he is a troll.
Gotcha.
res ipsa loquitor
Your silence on CC's degrading the level of discourse does, in fact, speak for itself. It's good that you realize it.
Quote from: Habbaku on October 07, 2011, 01:34:04 PM
Your silence on CC's degrading the level of discourse does, in fact, speak for itself. It's good that you realize it.
Clearly BBs is not all that concerned about the level of debate to begin with.
It is interesting that he asks us to listen to his "advice" and respond, while at the same time categorically refusing to extent that same courtesy.
Look, let's not lose sight of the topic here. All this talk about CC degrading the level of discourse is taking away from the central point of discussion, which is that Berkut is a coward and a liar.
I am no coward!
What a thread. Did CC bring out the novels yet?
Quote from: Berkut on October 07, 2011, 02:15:55 PM
I am no coward!
I dunno, those things always sound better with two words. Now, my vocabulary of mild derogatory terms consists of only three words: 'liar', 'coward' and 'homo'. I didn't think that I could get 'homo' to stick, but the other two are pretty vague and easy to throw around, and I wanted to get in on the spirit of the thread.
I see Berkut brought out the tribes thing again. :rolleyes:
Quote from: The Brain on October 07, 2011, 02:18:02 PM
What a thread. Did CC bring out the novels yet?
I think we were on track for it, but he derailed himself before allowing it to go that far. So, he's getting better about shooting his mouth off, at least.
Quote from: Razgovory on October 07, 2011, 02:23:52 PM
I see Berkut brought out the tribes thing again. :rolleyes:
It is a recurring theme in human interaction, more is the pity.
Are two tribes always at peace?
Quote from: Berkut on October 07, 2011, 02:34:39 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on October 07, 2011, 02:23:52 PM
I see Berkut brought out the tribes thing again. :rolleyes:
It is a recurring theme in human interaction, more is the pity.
There is always some asshole who thinks he's above the fray while wallowing in the trenches.
Quote from: Razgovory on October 07, 2011, 02:36:54 PM
Quote from: Berkut on October 07, 2011, 02:34:39 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on October 07, 2011, 02:23:52 PM
I see Berkut brought out the tribes thing again. :rolleyes:
It is a recurring theme in human interaction, more is the pity.
There is always some asshole who thinks he's above the fray while wallowing in the trenches.
I see you are diving right into the ad hom fray yourself. Classy as always Raz.
Quote from: Berkut on October 07, 2011, 02:38:55 PM
I see you are diving right into the ad hom fray yourself. Classy as always Raz.
However, I am honest about it.
this thread needs more little boats.
Quote from: HVC on October 07, 2011, 02:41:40 PM
this thread needs more little boats.
Oh lordy, that was funny. :D Pateches forever!
If it's
little boats you wanted though, shoulda brought up the Canadian navy, not army. ;)
Quote from: Razgovory on October 07, 2011, 02:40:08 PM
Quote from: Berkut on October 07, 2011, 02:38:55 PM
I see you are diving right into the ad hom fray yourself. Classy as always Raz.
However, I am honest about it.
Being honest about lacking objectivity or ability to think outside your worldview doesn't really make it better. If anything, it makes it worse. Hell, most people don't even really realize that they don't really look at issues objectively. Knowing that you do not and being ok with it is pretty screwed up.
Quote from: Malthus on October 07, 2011, 02:44:25 PM
Quote from: HVC on October 07, 2011, 02:41:40 PM
this thread needs more little boats.
Oh lordy, that was funny. :D Pateches forever!
If it's little boats you wanted though, shoulda brought up the Canadian navy, not army. ;)
do our boats still even float, or is it just our subs that are sinking?
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2F3.bp.blogspot.com%2F-151_yPL-br4%2FTnDt_P0E0dI%2FAAAAAAAAJyE%2Fon0SCBKQu8Y%2Fs1600%2FI%252527m%252BNot%252BFat%252B-%252BI%252527m%252BJust%252BA%252BLittle%252BHusky.jpg&hash=689988236e80c08b57836ce578430c858d93576e)
:)
Good ole Languish mud slinging. :lmfao:
Well, this was mildly entertaining.
Some folks need to spend less time on languish methinks.
Quote from: Zoupa on October 07, 2011, 03:18:12 PM
Well, this was mildly entertaining.
Some folks need to spend less time on languish methinks.
Only "some"? :hmm:
:P
The last few pages were annoying. <_<
Anyway - when Canada disengages from Libya and Afghanistan, I suspect there will be increased emphasis on the "long term" spending, which will almost certainly include naval and air assets for the far north - Canada's on her own insofar as the US is not supporting Canada's claim to the region and thus Canada will have to have the capacity to patrol the area and enforce the claims - again, long term stuff but necessary if those claims are going to be taken seriously...
Quote from: AnchorClanker on October 07, 2011, 03:21:47 PM
The last few pages were annoying. <_<
Anyway - when Canada disengages from Libya and Afghanistan, I suspect there will be increased emphasis on the "long term" spending, which will almost certainly include naval and air assets for the far north - Canada's on her own insofar as the US is not supporting Canada's claim to the region and thus Canada will have to have the capacity to patrol the area and enforce the claims - again, long term stuff but necessary if those claims are going to be taken seriously...
Indeed. Currently the Navy is considering bids worth billions of dollars to build combat and support ships for a variety of potential missions included defending our territory and coastline in the north.
Yeah, it's gotta happen if those claims are to mean anything. Good investment, though.
Quote from: Berkut on October 07, 2011, 02:45:37 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on October 07, 2011, 02:40:08 PM
Quote from: Berkut on October 07, 2011, 02:38:55 PM
I see you are diving right into the ad hom fray yourself. Classy as always Raz.
However, I am honest about it.
Being honest about lacking objectivity or ability to think outside your worldview doesn't really make it better. If anything, it makes it worse. Hell, most people don't even really realize that they don't really look at issues objectively. Knowing that you do not and being ok with it is pretty screwed up.
Yeah, see you are confusing your opinion with an objective truth. I am under no such illusion.
Quote from: AnchorClanker on October 07, 2011, 03:27:25 PM
Yeah, it's gotta happen if those claims are to mean anything.
Agreed. We cant have Russians prowling around planting flags.
Quote from: Razgovory on October 07, 2011, 03:29:41 PM
Quote from: Berkut on October 07, 2011, 02:45:37 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on October 07, 2011, 02:40:08 PM
Quote from: Berkut on October 07, 2011, 02:38:55 PM
I see you are diving right into the ad hom fray yourself. Classy as always Raz.
However, I am honest about it.
Being honest about lacking objectivity or ability to think outside your worldview doesn't really make it better. If anything, it makes it worse. Hell, most people don't even really realize that they don't really look at issues objectively. Knowing that you do not and being ok with it is pretty screwed up.
Yeah, see you are confusing your opinion with an objective truth. I am under no such illusion.
That is not what we are talking about - we are talking about the ability to look at an issue objectively, rather than through the prism of your group.
This has nothing to do with confusing opinion and "truth".
Quote from: crazy canuck on October 07, 2011, 03:24:54 PM
Quote from: AnchorClanker on October 07, 2011, 03:21:47 PM
The last few pages were annoying. <_<
Anyway - when Canada disengages from Libya and Afghanistan, I suspect there will be increased emphasis on the "long term" spending, which will almost certainly include naval and air assets for the far north - Canada's on her own insofar as the US is not supporting Canada's claim to the region and thus Canada will have to have the capacity to patrol the area and enforce the claims - again, long term stuff but necessary if those claims are going to be taken seriously...
Indeed. Currently the Navy is considering bids worth billions of dollars to build combat and support ships for a variety of potential missions included defending our territory and coastline in the north.
How many F-35s is Canada still planning on getting?
Quote from: Berkut on October 07, 2011, 03:45:40 PM
That is not what we are talking about - we are talking about the ability to look at an issue objectively, rather than through the prism of your group.
This has nothing to do with confusing opinion and "truth".
Run this one by me again. The first and second sentences make sense on their own, but together I'm confused.
Quote from: Berkut on October 07, 2011, 03:46:13 PM
Quote from: crazy canuck on October 07, 2011, 03:24:54 PM
Quote from: AnchorClanker on October 07, 2011, 03:21:47 PM
The last few pages were annoying. <_<
Anyway - when Canada disengages from Libya and Afghanistan, I suspect there will be increased emphasis on the "long term" spending, which will almost certainly include naval and air assets for the far north - Canada's on her own insofar as the US is not supporting Canada's claim to the region and thus Canada will have to have the capacity to patrol the area and enforce the claims - again, long term stuff but necessary if those claims are going to be taken seriously...
Indeed. Currently the Navy is considering bids worth billions of dollars to build combat and support ships for a variety of potential missions included defending our territory and coastline in the north.
How many F-35s is Canada still planning on getting?
Not sure. The initial deal was for 65 but the cost per plane seems less certain now as does the deal.
Quote from: Grey Fox on October 06, 2011, 10:36:49 AM
Also, I guess the Japanese never conquered the Philippines either.
Nope. They occupied the Philippines, but since we kicked 'em out instead giving up, it wasn't a conquest.
Quote from: Barrister on October 07, 2011, 01:28:46 PM
Quote from: Habbaku on October 07, 2011, 01:27:28 PM
Beeb, why do you not call CC on his obvious shenanigans, yet proclaim Berkut is trolling?
I guess it could be that you expect more out of Berkut, which is certainly understandable.
*sniffs*
Nah, I don't care for this bait. Have anything else?
I could go dig up some nightcrawlers...
Quote from: dps on October 07, 2011, 09:15:41 PM
Quote from: Grey Fox on October 06, 2011, 10:36:49 AM
Also, I guess the Japanese never conquered the Philippines either.
Nope. They occupied the Philippines, but since we kicked 'em out instead giving up, it wasn't a conquest.
They first conquered then occupied the Philippines.
Quote from: Berkut on October 07, 2011, 03:46:13 PM
How many F-35s is Canada still planning on getting?
depends if the price is 138 million$ or 400 million$. Estimates seem to vary, and nobody gives a clear answer.
However, there's no contract now, and none will be signed before 2013. Lots of things can change.
As CC pointed, the original deal was for 65 aircraft. It's still supposed to be that, but we'll have to wait for the final price.
Quote from: Berkut on October 07, 2011, 03:46:13 PM
How many F-35s is Canada still planning on getting?
MacKay confirmed they're still buying 65 at the end of September.
This thread needs some pacifist music:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B8aal-gveRY
Quote from: Neil on October 07, 2011, 02:19:02 PM
I dunno, those things always sound better with two words. Now, my vocabulary of mild derogatory terms consists of only three words: 'liar', 'coward' and 'homo'. I didn't think that I could get 'homo' to stick, but the other two are pretty vague and easy to throw around, and I wanted to get in on the spirit of the thread.
Call him a fucking goof.
Quote from: Peter Wiggin on October 09, 2011, 06:14:21 AM
Quote from: Neil on October 07, 2011, 02:19:02 PM
I dunno, those things always sound better with two words. Now, my vocabulary of mild derogatory terms consists of only three words: 'liar', 'coward' and 'homo'. I didn't think that I could get 'homo' to stick, but the other two are pretty vague and easy to throw around, and I wanted to get in on the spirit of the thread.
Call him a fucking goof.
What? Who's fighting?
Canadians are gonna spend money on what really matters. :Canuck: :Canuck:
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/national/troops-to-receive-distinctly-canadian-fur-hats/article2191297/
QuoteTroops to receive 'distinctly Canadian' fur hats
The Department of National Defence has decided to add fur to the winter gear of the Canadian Forces, a move that's getting a frosty reception from animal-rights advocates.
The government says fur is part of Canada's heritage and the winter tuque currently in use doesn't stand up to the rigours of the Canadian winter. So it's buying an initial run of 1,000 fur-trimmed caps at a cost of $65,000, for use by guards of honour and Canadian Forces starting this winter.
"It has recently been identified that the winter tuque does not meet the Canadian Forces requirements in our Canadian climate," said DND spokeswoman Josée Hunter.
It's another return to tradition for the Harper government, which has restored the "Royal" designation to the air force and navy. British troops serving in Canada in the 1800s wore a fur head covering, and the Royal Canadian Corps of Signals (now the Communications and Electronics Branch) donned muskrat hats in the 1920s and 30s.
Although bearskin caps are still worn by the Ceremonial Guard, the Forces have largely switched from fur to synthetic. A synthetic fur cap was put into general service for male personnel after unification of the forces in 1968, and women's mink fur hats were replaced by tuques in the 1990s.
Now, however, National Defence says the winter headgear isn't cutting it, so it is bringing in so-called Yukon caps trimmed with muskrat fur.
"DND has reintroduced fur for the Yukon cap because the current winter tuque and synthetic version of the Yukon cap did not meet the specific requirements of the [Canadian Forces], including the thermal requirements due to our Canadian climate," Ms. Hunter said in an e-mail.
That claim was greeted with incredulity by animal-rights groups, who say modern synthetics have become proven substitutes for fur.
"There are synthetics that are just as good and that don't necessitate the killing of animals," Elizabeth Sharpe of the World Society for the Protection of Animals said from Toronto. "Killing animals for their fur is completely unnecessary and cruel."
Lesley Fox of the British Columbia-based Association for the Protection of Fur-Bearing Animals says muskrats are known to chew off their limbs to free themselves from leg-hold traps.
"With fur being such a controversial issue, this is a very surprising move," she said. "When we think of Canada, we think of celebrating wildlife, not wearing it. Any time you have a government or one of its departments wearing fur, it really misrepresents the current values of Canadians."
The Defence Department defended the move and noted the Forces' hats are modelled on those worn by the RCMP.
"The uniforms worn by the Canadian Forces are a reflection of Canada's proud heritage," Ms. Hunter said, calling the hats "distinctly Canadian."
Good show. I'd spend twice that to twist the knife in the animal rights lunatics.