M.Dancer Posted September 23, 2009 Report Share Posted September 23, 2009 You don't realize how trivial those numbers are? We bought 40 Cougars? Oh good. Shouldn't we have bought like 400 though? We bought 5 Husky's? Wow. That's a lot.Meanwhile... US to expand its supply of mine resitant vehicles Couldn't say if 400 is to many given that the UK has acquired just under 500....but 40 is too low. The LAV is the wrong vehicle for the job. It is bascially an up-armoured recce/ infantry fighting vehicle and not meant to patrol mine laden roads. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wyly Posted September 23, 2009 Report Share Posted September 23, 2009 What I think we need is an global military force comprising no more than 100,000 well trained and equipped men.Considering how complex our world has become, a national military force alone, without the backing of a global force, fully multilingual and thus more capable of engaging in hearts and minds campaings (the failure of which was a major source of agony in Vietnam, Iraq and Afghanistan) is fast becoming a relic of the bygone era. phenomenal waste of my tax dollars, it would be better spent on adding dental care to our healthcare.... other than securing our borders why do we need to play war games to satisfy gun-strokers?...we are in no danger of being invaded by any country, the only country that has presents any danger to our security is and always has been the the USA and 100,000 is not going to save us if they decide to attack us again...equip our forces properly to secure our borders, put a put a peace force of 500-1,000 at the UN's disposal and stay out of other countries internal disputes... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
M.Dancer Posted September 23, 2009 Report Share Posted September 23, 2009 ....the only country that has presents any danger to our security is and always has been the the USA ... Oh to be young and naive again... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
eyeball Posted September 23, 2009 Report Share Posted September 23, 2009 phenomenal waste of my tax dollars, it would be better spent on adding dental care to our healthcare....other than securing our borders why do we need to play war games to satisfy gun-strokers?...we are in no danger of being invaded by any country, the only country that has presents any danger to our security is and always has been the the USA and 100,000 is not going to save us if they decide to attack us again...equip our forces properly to secure our borders, put a put a peace force of 500-1,000 at the UN's disposal and stay out of other countries internal disputes... We should also get in the faces of countries that insist on getting into other countries internal disputes and bring all the economic and diplomatic pressure we can to bear on them to stop. Their behavious is what's causing most of the instability in the world that in turn is threatening our well being. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wilber Posted September 23, 2009 Report Share Posted September 23, 2009 phenomenal waste of my tax dollars, it would be better spent on adding dental care to our healthcare....other than securing our borders why do we need to play war games to satisfy gun-strokers?...we are in no danger of being invaded by any country, the only country that has presents any danger to our security is and always has been the the USA and 100,000 is not going to save us if they decide to attack us again...equip our forces properly to secure our borders, put a put a peace force of 500-1,000 at the UN's disposal and stay out of other countries internal disputes... Time to move along. They haven't attacked us for nearly two hundred years. We have been allies a lot longer than we were enemies. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Moonbox Posted September 23, 2009 Report Share Posted September 23, 2009 Oh to be young and naive again... I was going to say st....delusional. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wilber Posted September 23, 2009 Report Share Posted September 23, 2009 We should also get in the faces of countries that insist on getting into other countries internal disputes and bring all the economic and diplomatic pressure we can to bear on them to stop. Their behavious is what's causing most of the instability in the world that in turn is threatening our well being. And they tell you to get stuffed. Then what? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bush_cheney2004 Posted September 23, 2009 Report Share Posted September 23, 2009 We should also get in the faces of countries that insist on getting into other countries internal disputes and bring all the economic and diplomatic pressure we can to bear on them to stop. Their behavious is what's causing most of the instability in the world that in turn is threatening our well being. No irony here folks....."get in the face" ?? Pressure ?? So much for minding your "own business". Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest American Woman Posted September 23, 2009 Report Share Posted September 23, 2009 ...the only country that has presents any danger to our security is and always has been the the USA and 100,000 is not going to save us if they decide to attack us again... Since the war of 1812 was waged against Britain, I don't think you need to worry that we're going to "decide" to attack you "again." As for ever present danger the U.S. presents, I think you've seen "Canadian Bacon" one too many times. As for the "only country," I think you must live in an alternate universe to believe that. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest American Woman Posted September 23, 2009 Report Share Posted September 23, 2009 We should also get in the faces of countries that insist on getting into other countries internal disputes .... Normally "getting in someone's face" is perceived as aggression, and more often than not, ends in a fight. So be prepared to fight whoever's face you get in. .....and bring all the economic and diplomatic pressure we can to bear on them to stop. Their behavious is what's causing most of the instability in the world that in turn is threatening our well being. Are you talking about "scanctions?" Because according to humanitarian organizations, they hurt only the civilian population. Furthermore, a nation has to be prepared to suffer economically itself if it decides to bring "economic and diplomatic pressure" to a nation. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
waldo Posted September 23, 2009 Report Share Posted September 23, 2009 Oh to be young and naive again... I was going to say st....delusional. water... it's the new oil....... but then again, I expect youse guys are all for that there "deep integration thingee", right? I expect youse guys are so tapped in, you've got a deeerect line to SPP central! "Arrangements"... will be made - one way or the other! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
M.Dancer Posted September 23, 2009 Report Share Posted September 23, 2009 water... it's the new oil....... but then again, I expect youse guys are all for that there "deep integration thingee", right? I expect youse guys are so tapped in, you've got a deeerect line to SPP central! "Arrangements"... will be made - one way or the other! You might want to add context to this statement. Otherwise it is unintelligible. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Smallc Posted September 23, 2009 Report Share Posted September 23, 2009 Our fatalities on the road are largely due to the wrong equipment for the job at hand. Except that we use those exact vehicles on the ground now. That said, those vehicles can't do everything, and so others have to be used as well. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Smallc Posted September 23, 2009 Report Share Posted September 23, 2009 We can afford more. We afforded more in the not very distant past. I don't have a problem with higher taxes if needed - for health care or the military - so long as it is spent wisely. Well, we agree there. Too bad most of the people don't. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Smallc Posted September 23, 2009 Report Share Posted September 23, 2009 (edited) What is it being spent on? 50% of the DND budget goes to personnel. Overall, just over 50 per cent of National Defence’s budget is spent on personnel. http://www.dnd.ca/site/pri/1/index-eng.asp Edited September 23, 2009 by Smallc Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Smallc Posted September 23, 2009 Report Share Posted September 23, 2009 You don't realize how trivial those numbers are? We bought 40 Cougars? Oh good. Shouldn't we have bought like 400 though? We bought 5 Husky's? Wow. That's a lot. We also bought new tanks, RG - 31s, and brought in tracked armour...and then we announced a $5B vehicle upgrade and purchase project. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Smallc Posted September 23, 2009 Report Share Posted September 23, 2009 50% of the DND budget goes to personnel.http://www.dnd.ca/site/pri/1/index-eng.asp Oh, and here's a good article: http://www.canada.com/topics/news/story.ht...9f-aa03078c1f35 It's now over $20B. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Smallc Posted September 23, 2009 Report Share Posted September 23, 2009 We also bought new tanks, RG - 31s, and brought in tracked armour...and then we announced a $5B vehicle upgrade and purchase project. We have almost 200 mine resistant vehicles. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wyly Posted September 23, 2009 Report Share Posted September 23, 2009 Since the war of 1812 was waged against Britain, I don't think you need to worry that we're going to "decide" to attack you "again."As for ever present danger the U.S. presents, I think you've seen "Canadian Bacon" one too many times. As for the "only country," I think you must live in an alternate universe to believe that. 1844-"Fifty-four Forty or Fight!" how conveniently for you to forget that...the Brits ceded most of what was to become Washington state to the USA in order to avoid a war... 1866-Fenian raids and even now the USA still denies our sovereignty of the internal waters of the North West Passage the US is the only country that still attacks other countries without legitimate cause... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
M.Dancer Posted September 23, 2009 Report Share Posted September 23, 2009 the US is the only country that still attacks other countries without legitimate cause... Oh to be young naive and simple... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wyly Posted September 23, 2009 Report Share Posted September 23, 2009 Oh to be young and naive again... oh to be historically ignorant again...when you're as old as my mother 99 feel free to be condescending till then *******... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
M.Dancer Posted September 23, 2009 Report Share Posted September 23, 2009 oh to be historically ignorant again...when you're as old as my mother 99 feel free to be condescending till then *******... Again? I was right about who the soviets murdered and you were confused. BTW, your mother is Barbara Feldman? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest American Woman Posted September 23, 2009 Report Share Posted September 23, 2009 1844-"Fifty-four Forty or Fight!" how conveniently for you to forget that...the Brits ceded most of what was to become Washington state to the USA in order to avoid a war... Fifty-four forty or fight, in U.S. history, phrase commonly used by extremists in the controversy with Great Britain over the Oregon country. Again, it was a controversy with Britain, not Canada. And it was a phrase used by extremists, not the U.S.. And the territory was "in dispute," so Britain claimed it and the U.S. claimed it. A treaty between the two nations settled the dispute. 1866-Fenian raids Is this what you are referring to? Fenian Raid (1866): Fenians is the name of the old Irish National Militia. After the Civil War in the USA, the American Fenians were bolstered by Civil War mercenaries. In need of something to occupy this large force, John O'Neil crossed the Niagara River, captured Fort Erie, and made his headquarters at Limeridge. The Fenians defeated a unit of the Canadian Militia at Ridgeway, but withdrew to the USA when a stronger force was sent to the area. President Johnson had many of the Fenians arrested. You do understand the difference between "Fenians" and "the United States," right? The fact taht the president had "many" of them arrested should further clarify that it wasn't the U.S. "attacking Canada." And even now the USA still denies our sovereignty of the internal waters of the North West Passage The U.S. isn't alone in that denial, nor is Canada alone in claiming it. the US is the only country that still attacks other countries without legitimate cause... Yep. Every other nation waging war right now has "legitimate cause." Only the U.S. doesn't have any legitimate cause. Which means, of course, our allies are justified for their attacks/their involvement; only the U.S. isn't. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Machjo Posted September 23, 2009 Report Share Posted September 23, 2009 One hundred thousand is dick-diddly. You'd need more. For every soldier in the field, there are 10 in support...give or take. I was thinking more of a force with a narrower mandate. Essentially, a governmen-byuster, a force designed to destroy a rogue government quickly and then pull out. This would mean of course that national militaries and police forces might need to provide back up. Honestly though, though I see the obvious advantages of a world military force, I'd have my concerns in making it too powerful. I'd rather have some limits to its power, and if it needs to be supplemented, then perhaps individual countries coudl do so with their national forces. but this would still allow nations to save money by at least reducing their overall military spending even if they do keep a national force of their own. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Machjo Posted September 23, 2009 Report Share Posted September 23, 2009 phenomenal waste of my tax dollars, it would be better spent on adding dental care to our healthcare.... This would likely save money that could thenbe diverted to health care. After all, such a force woudl allow Canada to reduce its own military to a bare minimum. As for the world force, it woulf of course be funded by all nations, thus making individual national contributions miuscule. other than securing our borders why do we need to play war games to satisfy gun-strokers?...we are in no danger of being invaded by any country, the only country that has presents any danger to our security is and always has been the the USA and 100,000 is not going to save us if they decide to attack us again...equip our forces properly to secure our borders, put a put a peace force of 500-1,000 at the UN's disposal and stay out of other countries internal disputes... Actually, a UN force woudl likely be less prone to war than national ones. If we observe history, the UN has approved police action only on the rarest of occasions. Compare that with Harper wanting to send troops into Iraq (illegal according to Annan). Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.