g_bambino Posted July 30, 2012 Report Share Posted July 30, 2012 Neither does the War of 1812 discussions... Exactly. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
g_bambino Posted July 30, 2012 Report Share Posted July 30, 2012 Are you saying the people who lived in Quebec 200 years ago were not French??? Not after 10 February 1763. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
waldo Posted July 30, 2012 Report Share Posted July 30, 2012 To put your glib and sarcastic deflection away from the point another way: "I don't know how to rationally defend my claim against analysis." no glibness... certainly no sarcasm. Look, I get it! Although a relative distraction within this thread, I acknowledge this legitimate criticism of 'War of 1812 celebration/costs' touches a bit close to the sanctity of where you place/hold ties to the British. In any case it was you that made the nonsensical comparison to Remembrance Day commemorations. But hey now, let me offer you one of my own comparisons - just how did Harper Conservatives observe/celebrate/remember the recent anniversary of the Charter, hey?... what costs were associated to that, particularly when compared to the $28 million spent on celebrating the 'War of 1812'? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Topaz Posted July 30, 2012 Author Report Share Posted July 30, 2012 I would add, that once you pay the very expensive payout of growing a military, then you MUST use that military in wars or one has just wasted money on the military, when it could have gone else where to help out people. Also, the military of today and of the future, will be very expensive to have, in lives and in equipment. Perhaps that is ONE of the reason the US is agreeing to harmonize some faces of their military with Canada. Another point in growing our military, what would be the US reaction if Canada has a PM that wanted to acquire nukes?? Finally, is Canada going to have the personnel to run the military? Is that the plan of the Tories, to create unemployment that people will turn to the military for a job? BTW, Canada has just spent 14 Million on amour vehicles for the RCMP, made is the US, of course. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shady Posted July 30, 2012 Report Share Posted July 30, 2012 I would add, that once you pay the very expensive payout of growing a military, then you MUST use that military in wars or one has just wasted money on the military Complete nonsense. Just as a country spends money on a nuclear missile doesn't mean it has to use it or it's a waste of money. Your opinion makes no sense. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wild Bill Posted July 30, 2012 Report Share Posted July 30, 2012 I would add, that once you pay the very expensive payout of growing a military, then you MUST use that military in wars or one has just wasted money on the military, when it could have gone else where to help out people. Also, the military of today and of the future, will be very expensive to have, in lives and in equipment. Perhaps that is ONE of the reason the US is agreeing to harmonize some faces of their military with Canada. Another point in growing our military, what would be the US reaction if Canada has a PM that wanted to acquire nukes?? Finally, is Canada going to have the personnel to run the military? Is that the plan of the Tories, to create unemployment that people will turn to the military for a job? BTW, Canada has just spent 14 Million on amour vehicles for the RCMP, made is the US, of course. Topaz, have you ever heard of defending your country? If you have no military, what do you do if another country takes military action against you. It doesn't have to be an invasion of your country. What about taking over your fishing waters? What about seizing your oil rigs in other countries with which you have treaties and conflicts? Your military is like your Furnace Repairman who lives in your basement, like the old TV commercial. He is there so that he can come out when you need him! Or do you think any aggressor will agree to give you a few years warning so that you can have time to build a military from scratch? SHEEESH! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
g_bambino Posted July 30, 2012 Report Share Posted July 30, 2012 (edited) Look, I get it! Although a relative distraction within this thread, I acknowledge this legitimate criticism of 'War of 1812 celebration/costs' touches a bit close to the sanctity of where you place/hold ties to the British. In any case it was you that made the nonsensical comparison to Remembrance Day commemorations. But hey now, let me offer you one of my own comparisons - just how did Harper Conservatives observe/celebrate/remember the recent anniversary of the Charter, hey?... what costs were associated to that, particularly when compared to the $28 million spent on celebrating the 'War of 1812'? We're all still waiting for a rational explanation as to how the commemoration of the 200th anniversary of the War of 1812 is a sign of the militarisation of Canada by the present government, in light of the fact that important historical events, including military ones, are generally marked by governments, the grandiosity of the ceremonies and such always being related to the size and roundness of the number of years that have passed since the event being marked took place. You yourself give hint that you're aware of that when you ask about the 30th anniversary of the proclamation of the Constitution Act 1982. You also must (or should be) aware that many millions were spent by the Cabinet headed by Paul Martin for big commemorations, both in Canada and in France, of the 60th anniversary of D-Day in 2005. Yet, you still choose to single out the commemoration of the bicentennial of the War of 1812 as something comlpetely out of the ordinary and conclude for yourself that the explanation for it's occurrence can only be related to the other conclusion you've drawn for yourself, namely that Conservative Party equals military dictatorship. [ed.: -] Edited July 30, 2012 by g_bambino Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Argus Posted July 30, 2012 Report Share Posted July 30, 2012 just how did Harper Conservatives observe/celebrate/remember the recent anniversary of the Charter, hey?... what costs were associated to that, particularly when compared to the $28 million spent on celebrating the 'War of 1812'? Very few. The gunpowder attached to the judges they flung into the air was expensive, but when it went off there were many pretty colours and then the elimination of the need to pay the judges' pensions pretty much covered the cost of the whole show. Too bad you couldn't make it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gunrutz Posted July 30, 2012 Report Share Posted July 30, 2012 Very few. The gunpowder attached to the judges they flung into the air was expensive, but when it went off there were many pretty colours and then the elimination of the need to pay the judges' pensions pretty much covered the cost of the whole show. Too bad you couldn't make it. A great show to be sure. There is a military base in my town, of course unless you work on the base you would hardly know it, but no doubt the change is happening silently all around me, soon i won't be able to see the forest for the militarism. My god, they might put up a flag. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Army Guy Posted August 1, 2012 Report Share Posted August 1, 2012 in the face of the undeniable overt increased militarism by Harper Conservatives, You keep saying the undeniable overt increase of militarism within our nation by the existing ruling party, but you only mentioned a few events, you make it sound like canada is trying to memick it's communists brothers Russia and china, true forms of militarism....what we have happening in Canada is a resurgence in supporting our military, nothing more. you continue to draw reference to 'soldier numbers'... without including reservists... without including civilian related numbers within DND. If you have updated numbers on those, great - all I could find were numbers from 2008 => ~120,000 persons on the payroll, inclusive of ~25,000 civilians within DND... Actually i provided those numbers on page four, but i'll give them to you again to help drive home my piont. Reseve numbers have gone from 21000 in the year 2000 to now a whopping 26000 in 2011. Note these numbers are falling as cut backs are forth coming, also mentioned in the sources i posted on page 4. so over the last 10 years a increase of less than 600 pers a year.... As for the PS service they have been in decline since the 90's , and it's outlook is no better in 2011 as the shed anopther 2000 jobs. curruntly it's numbers are 19300 pers.... So with an annual increase of 1600 soldiers and civil service in decline have we even approached this so call militarism.... civil service 2011 We see regular yearly budgets of 20+ billion a year... How many years for budgets over 20 bil..... It takes something like the JSFail F-35 emphasis on 'life-cycle' costing to bring forward just how much actual monies are involved. (Few) Canadians realize the purposeful budget manipulations that push actual military costs forward for later governments to deal with. Those JSF numbers are bull crap, this has been argued already, it all well and good to use what ever numbers you want but the rest of the budget has to be brought in line as well, because they've already costed thos costs in other budgets...... and, yes, the abysmal state of certain types of equipment. However, in the face of stark ideological driven Harper Conservative spending cuts, many Canadians are beginning to question a perceived skewed imbalance between increased militarism at the expense of these ideological driven spending cuts; cuts which pale in comparison to military expenditures. That increased 'status' you speak of also brings notice on the inabilities of Canada's military to simply deal with needs relative to domestic, humanitarian and peace-keeping... let alone managing costs/requirements associated with "force projection preparedness". As for your reference to Afghanistan, (some) Canadians look at the overall failure in Afghanistan... canadians can look at it what ever way they want it was not their mission to comment on it was our forces....sorry sore piont with me, the majority of Canadian public gave up on that mission long ago....unless they include the 20 bucks a year the contributed to the mission costs....thats not supporting anything.... the related Canadian cost estimates, some approaching $30 billion... and seriously question just what role Canada's military should play when contrasted with inabilities to properly manage domestic/humanitarian/peace-keeping/etc. Our inabilities and the finger pionting that your doing should be pionted at you and the rest of tax payers, it is exactly what you wanted no more no less....i'd go on that thank god we have not had to deal with anything serious in the last 30 years, but what ever mission we have taken on i'd changledge you to find one failure.... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kairos Posted August 15, 2012 Report Share Posted August 15, 2012 Harper wants votes from the military, and his buddies want their boeing and lockheed stock options to surge. Its sad that Canada got hijacked by the neoconservatives. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Army Guy Posted August 15, 2012 Report Share Posted August 15, 2012 Harper wants votes from the military, and his buddies want their boeing and lockheed stock options to surge. Its sad that Canada got hijacked by the neoconservatives. This is well thought out response, even if Harper had all the military vote it would only be worth 100 k, that will get him a majority won't it.... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kairos Posted August 15, 2012 Report Share Posted August 15, 2012 You're forgetting that the military have large families and extended relatives, supply organizations etc, not to mention the thousands working in supply and the arms industry, or investing in such. This puts the military vote demographic much higher. Then even more important is the image. Even though millions of Canadians never served in the military, military might beyond all real necessity (see F35s) helps many Canadians deal with insecurity issues, and thus they are more likely to vote for Harper the big daddy figure they need to feel is in charge and running the show 'keeping us strong,' while depleting the treasury. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wyly Posted August 15, 2012 Report Share Posted August 15, 2012 You're forgetting that the military have large families and extended relatives, supply organizations etc, not to mention the thousands working in supply and the arms industry, or investing in such. This puts the military vote demographic much higher. Then even more important is the image. Even though millions of Canadians never served in the military, military might beyond all real necessity (see F35s) helps many Canadians deal with insecurity issues, and thus they are more likely to vote for Harper the big daddy figure they need to feel is in charge and running the show 'keeping us strong,' while depleting the treasury. identify special interests group and cater to them is how you sway elections, having a lock on even a hundred voters or less can make enough of a difference to win a closely contested seat in the HOC... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wyly Posted August 15, 2012 Report Share Posted August 15, 2012 Actually I read that article about Peter McKay's speech at the French embassy. And Peter McKay did not error. This is because the French Canadians 200 years ago still considered themselves as French. However if he said "France" as opposed to French he would have gaffed! WWWTT nooo...we're not living in the past tense, in today's world french = FRANCE...if he was referring to the Québécois he would have said french-canadians...never in my life have I referred to french canadians/ Québécois/Quebecers as "french"...never in all my schooling did a teacher refer to quebecers as french,french was only ever used to identify their language...in historical terms "the french" always described french nationals(Napoleonic forces of 1812) from France differentiating them from the french-canadians, ...Quebecers ceased to be french after the The Battle of the Plains of Abraham... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WWWTT Posted August 15, 2012 Report Share Posted August 15, 2012 nooo...we're not living in the past tense, in today's world french = FRANCE...if he was referring to the Québécois he would have said french-canadians...never in my life have I referred to french canadians/ Québécois/Quebecers as "french"...never in all my schooling did a teacher refer to quebecers as french,french was only ever used to identify their language...in historical terms "the french" always described french nationals(Napoleonic forces of 1812) from France differentiating them from the french-canadians, ...Quebecers ceased to be french after the The Battle of the Plains of Abraham... Well I am not from Quebec 1812. As far as I know all the people from 1812 Quebec are now dead. You have a link to back up your claim? WWWTT Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wyly Posted August 15, 2012 Report Share Posted August 15, 2012 Well I am not from Quebec 1812. As far as I know all the people from 1812 Quebec are now dead. You have a link to back up your claim? WWWTT when is the last time you heard anyone refer to french-canadians/Quebecois/Quebecers as "the french"?...it's not part of our daily canadian lexicon, when we speak of "the french" we mean the people of France not the people of quebec... we'll refer to our french speakers as quebecers, canadiens, quebecois, french-candians, acadians but never "the french" the french are an entirely different people/country...defending MacKay's gaffe by claiming he was speaking in the past tense(200 years past no less) requires a huge stretch of the imagination... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WWWTT Posted August 15, 2012 Report Share Posted August 15, 2012 defending MacKay's gaffe by claiming he was speaking in the past tense(200 years past no less) requires a huge stretch of the imagination... Yes and that is what I am doing. I prefer that this matter just go away because McKay almost seems to enjoy being a bumbler. However I do believe that the French born in Quebec at that time considered themselves as French and he was only recognizing this fact. I am not going to argue this any further because it is not much.Go ahead have the last word. WWWTT Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wyly Posted August 15, 2012 Report Share Posted August 15, 2012 Yes and that is what I am doing. I prefer that this matter just go away because McKay almost seems to enjoy being a bumbler. However I do believe that the French born in Quebec at that time considered themselves as French and he was only recognizing this fact. I am not going to argue this any further because it is not much.Go ahead have the last word. WWWTT for whatever reason you're being generous to MaKay, if you want to give him the benefit of the doubt that's up to you...for the rest of us who heard "the french" our first an only thought was France, not french-canadians of quebec...this may seem a small issue to many but I expect the PM or minsters external affairs portfolios and defense to KNOW international history inside and out it's crucial to the job...harper/baird/mackay are historical idiots...history knowledge is crucial to foreign affairs... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The_Squid Posted August 15, 2012 Report Share Posted August 15, 2012 (edited) He was giving the speech in France i.e. to the French. The French embassy is French soil. He messed up or he decided to make up his own history to suit his audience? Maybe he thought that we could build closer ties by re-writing history to suit that purpose? It's hard to say what he was thinking.... but Mackay has shown a pattern of incompetence, so I will give him the benefit of the doubt and say that he wasn't lying.... he's just stupid. Edited August 15, 2012 by The_Squid Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kairos Posted August 15, 2012 Report Share Posted August 15, 2012 (edited) identify special interests group and cater to them is how you sway elections, having a lock on even a hundred voters or less can make enough of a difference to win a closely contested seat in the HOC... Bingo, and that is a demographic that is alot higher than 100. Then there is the exigency of it. Harper's base is especially focused in Alberta, which sees itself much as Texas does in the states. Thus at the very least the base demands the appearance of strong military backing. The psychology of this mentality was examined well in the book "The Authoritarians" by Bob Altemayer, a scholar from Manitoba. http://home.cc.umanitoba.ca/~altemey/ (free read online). Edited August 16, 2012 by kairos Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wilber Posted August 16, 2012 Report Share Posted August 16, 2012 I can see how the French would be confused. Hasn't this guy ever heard of Napoleon? Waterloo? You know, that stuff. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest BuhAnydAy Posted August 24, 2012 Report Share Posted August 24, 2012 President Barack Obama has hardly achieved anything throughout his first three years in office, most Americans believe. Just 12 per cent - significantly less than 1 person in 8 - say he has accomplished a whole lot, despite Democrats’ boasts he got through his signature healthcare plan and was in power when Osama bin Laden was killed, in accordance with a new poll published on Wednesday. I have a very small business in Las Vegas at las vegas cleaning service and I have my fears. 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.