Dougie93

Stop falling for it, stop and turn into the opponent, advocate for no military spending at all, because it is $20+ billion a year that the Liberal Party of Canada is confiscating from you to funnel to entrenched interests such as Irving, Lockheed Martin, General Dynamics, and British Aerospace Enterprises. I even own Lockheed Martin, but I'm willing to take the hit, stop funneling money to me, when you don't actually have a warfighting military, not even close, so it's just corporate welfare.

Canada really just being a cause and effect reaction to the evolution of the American republic. George Washington at Jumonville Glenn incites Wolfe at Quebec. George Washington at the Potomac incites the United Empire Loyalists. James Madison at the Heights of Queenston incites "Canadian" The Fenians at Ridgeway incites "Canada" FDR comes to the aid in the darkest hour, and from there to the United Kingdom - United States Security Agreement, where we are now.

See this is the result of the Cultural Marxists of academia particularly the education faculties erasing the central narrative of Canadian history in order to be able to run a nanny socialist welfare gulag to their own interests, so you've got Canadians (this one claiming to be a post-grad IIRC) not even understanding the fundamental nature of the state they are actually living in, be that Confederation or the House of Windsor. They don't know that Confederation is not the only option, and they don't know that they are living in a political legal entity called a monarchy rather than the Americans which Canadians are want to emulate, who live in a republic. Reason being that if Canadians realized the truth of it, they also could decline to live in a nanny socialist welfare gulag and instead aspire to be real countries rather than a fake country mafia state.

Obviously as an individual autonomous from the state, I have no national debt, and as said individual, I am as of this moment well into the black.

Monarchy is the state of loyalty to a hereditary aristocracy led by a monarch. In such states your binding obligation is to a single person embodied. Loyalty to a state of "countrymen" is called res publica, or a republic, which I do not live in and have never taken any oath of allegiance to. Bear in mind, in classically liberal free states, a citizen cannot be charged with treason except by what oaths they have actively undertaken to the state. Canada by rendered judgement of the SCC does not require oaths of allegiance from private citizens. The only oath I have undertaken which binds me still, is to the Commander-in-Chief at Buckingham Palace with no Canadian Confederation betwixt us. Obviously HM's security detail is entirely for the protection of HM, against any and all comers, foreign and/ or domestic. Thus, not treasonous in anyway whatsoever, quite the opposite in fact, in my upholding classical liberal limited government conservatism in defence of the British Crown in North America.

Indeed, it wasn't called a revolution for nothing, but it was in fact a rout, being executed by way of printing press and pamphleteering to make a case, and so the Dutch Regent and his co-conspirators seized the Crown nary a shot fired for all intents and purposes, and thus a peaceful transfer of power. The Dutch Regent then founded the modern Westminster Parliamentary democracy to enshrine peaceful transfer of power for all time. How it did a piss poor job prior to impaling itself on Belgian Neutrality is not clear, as it became the Global Hegemon and arguably the greatest of the them all, until the Americans species altering heights at the Sea of Tranquility on the Moon surpassed it.

This of course was the founding of the modern liberal state, which immediately began to outpace and dominate the despotic regimes all around it, to include inciting the downfall of its arch nemesis the House of Bourbon, to include the Treaty of Paris 1763 founding its Empire, said Empire growing exponentially until it charged into Belgian Neutrality in 1914 and then impaled itself on the Somme, inciting its rapid collapse thereafter. Prologue; classical liberal conservatism was then bailed out by the American Empire of Liberty which has carried on as the Anglo-American Enlightenment standard bearer to this day, as of 0000 hrs Zulu Time.

The Protestants had already won, it wasn't to protect them, it was to bring a peace about between them and the Roman Catholics, because the Protestants being the vanguard of Scottish Enlightenment led classically liberal conservatism, wanted to do business, so they could get rich, and to do so, needed to have a peaceful transfer of power to end the cycle of violence. The extremists were thrown out of Britain and sent to colonies in British North America, where they eventually became the Americans, after rising to the level of a super rich planting aristocracy, classically liberal and conservative, but only for white male property owners, otherwise known as a landed gentry.

Bear in mind, these forums all go into the search engines and your posts are accessible to billions, if even only a tiny number of them hit on your posts in the search reference, that in of itself is a exponentially huge market. But also, these posts are permanent for all time digitally speaking, which is probably a very long time, potentially ages, as the internet is designed to survive even a nuclear war, which was in fact the purpose of DARPA creating it.

I merely submit my ideas to the market and let the market decide, but going by the terms of this Invision forum, my community reputation is "excellent", which is likely not a qualitative assessment, but it probably means people are reading it, which means it is getting to market. But moreover, there is also the markets beyond, as when you are posting on a internet forum, you are publishing to the internet, world wide, publishing a book in effect. This is how I choose to write my book. You can write what you like in your book, you only appear in my book where I quote you. /shrugs

Put simply, they had been poisoned, by their own chain of command.

Which obviously, with the Airborne Regiment bound by national and international law and the laws of armed conflict could not do lawfully, absent direct participant in hostilities armed and dangerous, which the teenagers who were trying to break in to steal their walkmans and whatnot, did not meet the threshold of. And you certainly couldn't beat them to death once secured as prisoners. But again, the Regiment was suffering from a mania incited by giving them drugs which made the crazy.

For example if the balloon goes up tomorrow on the Suwalki Gap, the Canadian Enhanced Forward Presence Battle Group at Camp Adazi outside of Riga Latvia, will simply have to make it to the Polish border before the 1st Guards Tank Army closes the trap at the frontier of Kaliningrad, or be evacuated somehow past the Russian Baltic Fleet by sea, or otherwise, it will simply have to be abandoned behind the lines. Then I would expect a NATO 1st Army Headquarters to be established on the Vistula at Warsaw, led by the American Supreme Allied Commander Europe. Whether the Kremlin would return our prisoners to us after would be a function of where things went from there.

NATO tripwires are rhetorical, no evidence whatsoever that to spring a NATO tripwire incites an immediate escalation to countervalue thermonuclear exchange, quite the opposite in fact, which is why the Russians are probing NATO right now. And there's nothing apocalyptic about de-Confederation, quite the opposite there as well, as absent the Liberal Party of Canada and associated CBC propaganda arm asymmetrical dictatorship, the Canada's sub confederated de facto Dominions (who actually deliver all the services relavant to your lives, Ottawa simply confiscates the taxes for the purposes of a failed "equalization' regime) would be much healthier, wealthier and wiser without it, and would have vastly better national security as a result, still within the Commonwealth under the British Crown, with the exception of the Republic du Quebec.

Thus, in order to actually deter Mister Ivan, America must seek Full Spectrum Dominance to render it a totally unfair fight where America holds all the cards and can back it up with a super counterforce which is not only credible, but an unassailable over match which Ivan wouldn't want to mess with even if he was backs against a wall, because it would be massively incoming and minimally outgoing for his regime. I refer to this as the Curtis LeMay Doctrine, otherwise expressed as Peace Through Strength.

This is why the Neoconservatives are right and why they fled the Democrat Party in the first place. In that the Balance of Terror is not balanced, MAD is utopian and as a result fatally flawed, as in order for mutual vulnerability to be actual mutual, both sides in the conflict must be democratic, as if the population has no say, they cannot respond to your countervalue deterrence, furthermore despotic regimes are not rational actors, as despotism is ultimately irrational unto itself.

See, the ultimate purpose is not actually to kill people, the actual target is the industrial capacity and resources of the adversary state, because in many and most cases for America, said adversary is going to be despotic and so does not care if you kill their people, they only care if you destroy their capacity to wage war. Problem then being that the industrial wastage and resource contamination along with associated radioactive plume, will simply come back to rain down on the Global Hegemon by default. Ergo; in extremis with backs against the wall, you instead target the population which is upholding the adversary regime, without the fallout, as part of a super counterforce option to take the adversary regime down, but do it "clean" instead of "dirty" Thus, the neutron bomb.

This is also why the Americans continue to pursue counterforce, and as a result are in my opinion at some point comeback to the neutron bomb to replace the current countervalue inventory and go to super counterforce only. I would guess the Russians will respond by trying to make themselves look scarier and go in the other direction to Red Wings over the CONUS as their deterrent leverage.

Internet forums are by their very nature debating clubs. In a debate there must be argument. In order to argue, assertions must be logically supported. Fallacies are unproven by default. When someone argues in bad faith by specious fallacy, there is nothing there to actually argue with, so all you can do is point out the fallacy and move on. /shrugs

Again, specious fallacy, see; "specious", see; "fallacy", also see; "spurious" and see; "argument in bad faith". /shrugs

"Most Canadians" is a specious and totally unsupported assertion with no logical underpinning and thus a glaring fallacy on the face of it.

To wit; "ties run deep" is a specious and totally unsupported assertion with no logical underpinning and thus a glaring fallacy on the face of it.

An alliance is by definition an union or association, in order to have that, there must be a founding document, any alliance without terms is no alliance at all, again, by definition.

That hasn't been a pressing requirement to date tho, as the Americans have world class dark skies in Texas at Big Bend, and Chile is also 11 hours on the plane.

I'm a stargazer as well, so when and if I travel to South America, it will only be to and for the Atacama desert in Chile