Signals.Cpl

Then what is the magic number? What Equipment do we have? how many soldiers to protect Canada?

But your theory rests in us convincing every nations on earth as well as every terrorist organization to keep their funds in Canada and our banking system in order to have leverage over them, should one terrorist organization chose to keep their money somewhere else they are not threatened by us and can attack us at will while we cannot do a thing but probably beg the UN for peacekeepers who will watch us get slaughtered and urge calm.

Problem is they had something the Germans needed as in that moment, while Canada is loaded with resources they could use and develop at their pleasure once they have taken it. If we are to use the same tactic as Sweden we might need a couple of hundred Nuclear Warheads and be willing to kill about 35,000,000 Canadians to prevent someone from using our land and resources for at least a few hundred years... I think when all things are considered 65 F35s are not all that expensive...

Destroy what? Their gold? You think this is 1760?

Nations do not have friends, nations have allies, and nations have national interests when your national interests are contrary to my interests then we would part ways, precisely why over the last few thousand years few nations have fought side by side continuously in multiple wars, they are allies as long as it benefits both sides when one side has something to gain but the other side does not alliance is over. We are "friends" with the US as long as it is beneficial to them, should it become contrary to their national interests to be allied with us and be our trading parter they will cut us off in a second.

Keep waiting, he doesn't like to answer when things don't fit in to his fantasy.

And here you have argued about removing all policing and letting citizens form their own police forces... What you are proposing will shortly thereafter lead to anarchy therefore your position is to promote anarchy. So essentially you would like to hire mercenaries to police the country? They will not be loyal to the government after they realize that they can get their funds from "taxing" the people and the government can do nothing about it therefore they skip getting the funds from the government and tax their people. Because you just removed the military and police two institutions loyal to the government be it municipal, provincial or federal and hired mercenaries who are loyal to whoever provides money and supplies at which point they will realize they can get whatever they want without the government. Great, who is going to stop them? The government with no police or military forces to do so or the government with a token force that can do nothing but use stern language? You advocate eliminating the power of the government to enforce the laws and placing that power in private hands, which would lead to the government becoming irrelevant and dozens of warlords from popping out all over the country. You are suggesting removing the arm of the government that protects the people and enforces the law and replacing it with essentially a mob which would promptly ignore the direction of the government because they quickly find other sources of income and the leader of that mob is his own boss and won't have to listen to a government with no power. Place the weapons out of the governments hands and arm the citizens while letting private citizens form their own militia's means that the government has no means of protecting the people or enforcing the law... which will lead to anarchy and quickly in to dozens of city states with petty warlords fighting over other city states to increase their power. Because historically if anyone has tried to do as you suggest it would lead to anarchy and quickly to a dictator who grabs power. Fortunately I have a brain and have common sense so not much danger of me getting an idiotic idea like that. Because you suggest a, which would lead to be(anarchy), which leads to c(dictatorship/warlords) which leads to d(war). Your mistaken belief might be that what will happen is free market but it will go down the path of any previous attempts and will be an abysmal failure only on a larger level. Because mercenaries are notoriously unreliable, highest bidder gets their loyalty. AKA private militias. You are for wasting money? Because you either invest properly or you don't invest at all, spending a few million to a billion to keep a coupe of thousand soldiers in the army will help no one, it will just be a waste of resources. And I never said that we should buy a thousand jets... so you propose we keep sufficient soldiers to protect Canada... so what like 200,000? 300,000? Because our army right now is not big enough to do that properly, its just big enough to make the US feel safe enough not to decide to take over our defence. Read above I will not repeat myself. So lets hand it over to warlords and dictators? Look at Afghanistan circa 1960 and compare it to Afghanistan of 2001-2012 and see how good the warlords and dictators have been for that country and its people. Unfortunately you are proposing we disarm, let mercenaries defend us until they realize that they can just as well take from us and no one could do a thing, you are proposing we give up freedom to some dictator... not my idea of freedom. And no progress will be made when someone can go to your house and do as he pleases simply because there is no one to protect you and they are the law...

What was he banned for?

Go in to the most gang infested neighbourhood and flash a few thousand dollars while sitting by a nice car and try your brand of diplomacy... If your diplomacy cannot stop a smalltime gangster from beating you and taking your money, your diplomacy will not work on a warlord, a terrorist or a dictator(see Rwanda).

Go in to the most gang infested neighbourhood and flash a few thousand dollars while sitting by a nice car and try your brand of diplomacy...

You advocate a system that has not succeeded in thousands of years of human history because it is so completely idiotic it is not even funny. The idea you are proposing will survive for about a month before someone takes power, no central power means that neighbourhoods will fight until someone wins over the entire city, which leads to city states and potentially decades of warfare to form countries which lead to even more warfare to form larger countries and in a few hundred years we would be the same place as now only with hundreds of years of warfare, billions of lives lost and a standard of living to rival 12th century europe.

It is a lot less likely if there is the military as well as professional police forces to stop that, the likelihood of someone gathering enough strength to overthrow the government rises exponentially when you let them arm themselves and you disarm the government. At this moment the government has a monopoly on heavy weapons and a well trained force remove that and arm some petty dictator and things get interesting. Thats why they let the banks regulate themselves right? And it turns out they aren't too good at it. Different name same garbage. You are promoting anarchy learn its meaning. They should form their own police right? Gee why am I even arguing you flip and then you flop so much its hard to keep your bullshit straight. No police, no military no enforcement = laws are useless. Protect the liberty how? With very very strong language? No, a small group gain power and everyone loses power. Yeah because the holocaust was ethical right? Yeah and when they figure out that they can get their funds from somewhere else and call their own shots? Yes Africa is a good example to show how your anarchy solution leads to petty dictators and warlords controlling the supply and hence the people. No you are talking about anarchy, you have made no distinction in anything but name. They protest because they don't agree with something, they cause violence and destruction wherever they go and I would prefer that there is something between them and my family, if it is not the police or the military it would be a rifle and myself. I am paid to form a police force, I eliminate those pesky little things like standards(bureaucracy) and realize that I have a monopoly of armed man in my city so I decide that the federal government can try to call the shots but I will tax the people in my town or city and fund my own operation. I introduce a tax to every business and that automatically increase the cost and then tax the people to decrease available funds. I control the supply and I control the people, My family and close friends/allies get top notch healthcare everyone else gets the left over. See Above. See above. so you think it has never happened? When you remove the law and place law enforcement in the hands of private citizens this cannot happen? I control the standard because I have the guns, you want to get good healthcare you have to be useful to me, you are not useful you get what everyone else gets... The way you are proposing it, it is the exact same thing in a different name. 10,000 years of history and not one example of success? See above. I have the guns and I help the bad doctors stay in business, loyalty to the local warlord leads to better treatment while the common people get nothing. For about 5 minuets before someone takes over. See above. See above! Again, 10,000 years and not one viable example... I think this proves that in all of human history this idiotic idea has never survived for long as someone always comes on top and no one is there to stop him.

What if Merlin really is not Mr. Canada?

we still need it.

somebody got schooled and is walking away, cheer up at least you received some free education.

And 10 years ago the government wanted to eliminate the tanks because we wouldn't need them. Twenty years ago we sold our heavy transport helicopters to the Netherlands only to have to get transport from them in the helicopters we sold them while in Afghanistan. Then during afghanistan we bought/leased both in a short time frame and at a higher expense.

They needed the source of iron ore they lose that they lose the war in 1940 rather than 1945. Well if you had any understanding I wouldn't have to waste my time explaining it but here it goes, the German war machine was build around fast and ig victories, they would take a country and strip it of industry and any resources they could to fund another campaign, now Sweden had resources they needed here and now rather than resources they could develop in 5 or 10 years. Sweden sells resources to Germany=Good, Germany invade Sweden and lose source of iron=bad. Germany invade France which is no longer supplying needed resources=good, Germany let France develop those resources and build a stronger army=bad... Hitler wanted control of all the resources, letting another nation control your vital resources was not a good idea and thats why they wanted to attack Sweden, but they realized Sweden would make sure those resources were out of their reach for the forceable future. A vital resource for your war is not strategically important? Gee I think Napoleon here is losing his touch. No the resource was available if they did NOT invade, if they invaded they lose the vital resource whereas in other regions the resource was not their to exploit unless they took it by force.

do you advocate we do the same for al-quida? We let them keep their funds in Canada as long as they don't attack us?

What exactly are we going to blow up? Buy a nuke and threaten to destroy Canada if they come? They had something the Germans needed and they used it against them, the Germans needed iron ore right then and there so losing that source for six months, a year or 2 was out of the question... How would you suggest we pull of the same thing? Nuke the oil fields? Nuke the Arctic?

Nations don't have friends...

France was Germanys biggest trading partner before the war started and they sure as hell tried diplomacy. Soviet Union was sending resources to Germany, in fact the trains with resources were going to Germany when the German Army was moving in to the Soviet Union.... trade, diplomacy and such sure helped them am I right?

you have no idea what you are talking about and I am getting tired of arguing with you since you seem unable to grasp simple concepts that a 5 year old would have understood 4 hours ago. Removing all regulation, privatizing police and the military as well as medical and firefighting services will lead to people grabbing power and fighting to become the next dictator. You hold a belief that if we were to eliminate government people will suddenly start being charitable to each other all the while ignoring thousands of years of history and facts proving otherwise... I have way too much to do to waste my time with some child who has no concept of the real world and is probably in mommies basement advocating anarchy under a different name...

Sweden was not invaded Because the germans would have lost them as a source of iron when they needed it most. Switzerland was not invaded because the Germans realized they will lose plenty of troops for no gain. Iceland would have been taken had the Germans possess the ability to take it and take advantage. You are talking as if you know anything about history since you seem to ignore the main point, Germany invaded plenty of countries that were really happy to sell them their resources.

You are presenting zero difference between the two.

I am talking about you and your simpleminded idea to remove police and expect people to behave themselves and police themselves which will not happen. You are proposing anarchy under a different name. Whoa there boy, nanny state remember no regulation. That is a role they cannot sustain because someone will figure out that they can do as they please and the court cannot do anything about it, you want funds you "tax" the people under your control, you enforce laws you want rather than laws some lame government with no ability to enforce tells you to enforce. Well stop suggesting anarchy under a free market capitalism guise. There is no difference in the way you are suggesting it except that we end up with a short period of anarchy before different warlords take over and form city states and start wars to expand their empires. And what happens when they can't enforce a thing? So you are for property owners to field their own militaries while you are against property owners fielding their own private military? Why waste the money? Keeping a thousand soldiers is not going to change the situation one way or another. According to you government does nothing but pass laws that no one will listen to and that they cannot enforce. You know if you move to the woods you can have the freedom you so desire and the rest of us can live in a democracy rather than anarchy turned dictatorship.