Canada should renounce democracy

[paxamericana]

15 minutes ago, eyeball said:

This is what they get for failing to fashion their education system after Klingon military prep schools.  They're throwing snowflakes into battle with a moral underpinning that is thoroughly  inadequate for the job they've been tasked with.

These vets should be coming home bursting with pride not shame. 

Space force!

[bush_cheney2004]

4 minutes ago, paxrom said:

It's difficult for them, they're griping about  "National Defence fell $2.3 billion short" that's like loose change for us.

 

Difficult ?   They just don't want to do it.   It's "American style" and the Liberals would rather pay penalties than complete defence procurement contracts.   It also changes with each government.   Canadian Forces have to do more with less and less. 

[eyeball]

1 minute ago, paxrom said:

Space force!

More like a street gang you're initiated into with a beating.

[Army Guy]

14 hours ago, Zeitgeist said:

Hmm, not sure of your rank or regiment, but I do know Canadian military quite well.  I’m familiar with accounts of tours in Bosnia, Afghanistan and other commitments.  Canada is capable of building full on bases, airstrips, and hospitals and defending these in hostile territory. It did this in Afghanistan.  While the Hornets are getting old and Canada has really let its submarine capabilities slide, its city class frigates and light armour vehicles are quite state of the art.  It’s into all of the tech, from drones to cyber.  Yes, we’ve needed to rent heavy lift and there are areas that require upgrades, but on the whole the procurements are happening, the training is strong, and the missions successful.  

Not sure what rank or regiment have to do with the topic, , unless we are pulling our penises to measure who's is biggest....but MWO, and RCR...  the question I asked was how do you see our military today, it's strength , numbers, equipment even training. The impression I get is your not familiar with what is happening on the inside, infact a lot of Canadians are not, because if they did I think they would demand change now....

The reason I ask is there is a huge difference between what is actually taking place on the ground, and what is being reported by our government and senior staff of DND. One can not just read a few quotes on the intra net and claim that is what is happening in the forces, or sort of fill in the blanks and assume things are good.....because they are not..I'll give you a few examples, the LAV 6.0, which was a program designed to replace the old and tired LAV III , New vehs were suppose to be ordered, to replace all the LAV III, both battle damaged or destroyed vehs from Afghanistan and what was still being used in Canada. Funding was cut...what happened was the LAV III was in Half, the bottom half was discarded, a new and improved bottom half welded back on, the top half was the same old tired LAV III tech we had in Afghanistan, then it was rushed into service without any trails and evals being done, these were being done while units were receiving the vehs...major problems with tires, brakes, the list goes on and on....It should be noted that the Saudi's ordered over 12 Bil dollars worth of the LAV 6.0, the two vehs are not even close to being the same....we got the cheap of the cheapest version, and this is one of the most modern piece of equipment we have. Our Leo IIA4 we just bought are decades behind the tech curve, Germany now is working on the Leo IIA8, we have NO self propelled Arty, our air defense equipment is in storage, most of our SMP vehs sit in field rusting away, because they are no longer safe to drive, that includes the LSVW, MLVW, HLVW, Yes there are massive purchase projects in the works, PS these trucks were taken off the road in 2013....well over 70% of the fleet , to compensate the regular force raided Reserve force equipment such as the MSVS, with no lift units can not deploy any where, unless it is done with school bus, or civilian tractor trailers....

You want to compare our frigates with what is out there today, the first one launched in 1988, yes they have been refitted, lots of nice little goodies put into them, refitted started in 2007 finished in 2016,  yes they are relevant in todays climate, but they are not state of the art, Naval tech moves to fast for that....see Zumwalt class for an example. 

Our drone force is long gone...used up in Afghanistan, and once they returned , they were no longer supported....

https://www.huffingtonpost.ca/2016/02/28/liberals-drone-shopping-exercise-sets-stage-for-debate-over-lethal-force_n_9341934.html

What procurements are happening, the purchase of 18 used F-18 from Australia, what other projects are even close to making it to fruition…..most if not all have been postpone until after the 2019 election...

Training has been slashed unless your going on a tour, those that are not on tour get to do very little unit training....lets not talk about battle group or brigade level training a vital aspect  of training any army....

I don't want you to take my word for it, I want you to do some research dig into it yourself....and you'll be surprised at what you find...things are not what they say they are on the ground....they never are. How much of the military budget is being returned every year do to restrictive purchase policies making it impossible for not only DND to purchase equipment, but also PWSG who now handles all DND major purchases....Shit we can't even buy sleeping bags for our troops, or things like trucks...Something has to raise a red flag I mean come on it is smacking us in the face and we refuse to look at it....

 

[Army Guy]

Jacee, that is bullshit and you know it, They're are to many reasons those vets are taking their lives, lack of support from the government , citizens, lack of resources made available to them to treat PTSD, their are shit tonnes of reasons, with no direct proof that it was because it was all for nothing.....if anything it was for the troop on their left and right of you....not because your country wanted oil, or to line their pockets....

[paxamericana]

3 minutes ago, Army Guy said:

Jacee, that is bullshit and you know it, They're are to many reasons those vets are taking their lives, lack of support from the government , citizens, lack of resources made available to them to treat PTSD, their are shit tonnes of reasons, with no direct proof that it was because it was all for nothing.....if anything it was for the troop on their left and right of you....not because your country wanted oil, or to line their pockets....

yup, just more noise from dipshit who never went into the sandbox

 

Edited July 8, 2018 by paxrom

[eyeball]

22 minutes ago, Army Guy said:

Jacee, that is bullshit and you know it, They're are to many reasons those vets are taking their lives, lack of support from the government , citizens, lack of resources made available to them to treat PTSD, their are shit tonnes of reasons, with no direct proof that it was because it was all for nothing.....if anything it was for the troop on their left and right of you....not because your country wanted oil, or to line their pockets....

So you don't think hardening and inuring soldiers Klingon style would make a difference?

Everything they taught me in kindergarten should make a soldier puke in disgust. 

Edited July 8, 2018 by eyeball

[Zeitgeist]

I still think you have to factor the heavy cost of resettling refugees that Canada is paying into your equation of countries’ contributions to world security.  It’s not factored in as a contribution to NATO, but it makes NATO’s work a hell of a lot easier. 

[Army Guy]

9 minutes ago, eyeball said:

So you don't think hardening and inuring soldiers Klingon style would make a difference?

Everything they taught me in kindergarten should make a soldier puke in disgust. 

I think there are to many factors to be considered to pin PTSD or other illnesses on one factor, every soldier experiences everything different. And those experience effect his personality, his mental and medical state. The same effects can be seen on Fire fighters, policemen, EMS, etc etc....So ya toughening them up would help...worked for Sparta, in Greece.

I often wonder how a settler in the 1800's would handle the stresses of today, would they consider them trivial, I mean considering the lack of law enforcement, health care, medical advances, death was a pretty common thing...are we softer, I think we are, we are now concerned with gender neutrality in our national anthem, taking down statues of past leaders, lets not forget trying to discover which of the dozens of genders everyone is today....back in the day it would be trying to figure out if those approaching  people on horse back are friendly, will I have enough crops to feed my family, and if not who gets feed, who does not...

 

[Queenmandy85]

I have always advocated for a strong military for Canada. But the reality is, beyond our current Defence commitment, what exactly is our objective? The purposes of defence policy is to defend the nation against invasion and support foreign policy. Our current Defence capability is almost sufficient for our foreign policy commitment except living up to US requests for NATO. But, the prime objective,  defence of the nation against invasion is not achievable without breaking our commitment to the nuclear non-proliferation treaty. Acquisition of nuclear weapons would fulfill, not only our NATO commitment, but would deter anyone from invading us. Does anyone on this forum believe a government could survive acquiring nuclear weapons? Do any of you believe any nation, other than the US, could mount an invasion over the pole (in the case of Russia), or across the Pacific (in the case of China). Does anyone on this forum believe the United States of America would invade Canada? Even if we did have nuclear weapons, would any of you be willing to take the hit of a retaliatory response? 

Therefore, the question is, is a better equipped, larger Canadian Forces value for money? Would Canadians be willing to have conscription, and much higher taxes, for the remote possiblility of an American invasion, some day in the future? Governments have to have an eye on re-election. That is how democracy works. 

We do need to direct much more resourses to care and support for all veterans.

Edited July 8, 2018 by Queenmandy85

[Army Guy]

What is your idea of a strong military ? in regards to troops numbers, budget . My idea of a "strong" military would be one that is around 125-150 000 troops, with a budget in the mid 40- 50 bil....

The purpose of defense policy is to defend the nation from any hostile action of a foreign government or group...to include invasion, cyber attack, terrorist attack, economical attack, foreign or domestic. To ensure we can enforce our sovereignty, to implement and enforce all of our national laws, and inter national laws, but also to enforce all foreign policies, which include all the defensive pacts and arrangements we have signed onto such as NORAD, NATO, ABCAZ, US /Can emergency response to crises act. not to mention the hundreds of UN charters we signed on to. Todays military can support a few of our commitments but not all at once.  

[Army Guy]

35 minutes ago, Zeitgeist said:

I still think you have to factor the heavy cost of resettling refugees that Canada is paying into your equation of countries’ contributions to world security.  It’s not factored in as a contribution to NATO, but it makes NATO’s work a hell of a lot easier. 

Do you think you are reaching here ? I mean can we count Air Canada expenses towards our NORAD commitment , they after all fly or patrol the skys daily....besides they liberal government has already brainstormed every possible way to extend our % of GDP including creative accounting, trying to get out of our 2 % target.....Immigration was not counted as an example. 

[paxamericana]

8 minutes ago, Army Guy said:

What is your idea of a strong military ? in regards to troops numbers, budget . My idea of a "strong" military would be one that is around 125-150 000 troops, with a budget in the mid 40- 50 bil....

The purpose of defense policy is to defend the nation from any hostile action of a foreign government or group...to include invasion, cyber attack, terrorist attack, economical attack, foreign or domestic. To ensure we can enforce our sovereignty, to implement and enforce all of our national laws, and inter national laws, but also to enforce all foreign policies, which include all the defensive pacts and arrangements we have signed onto such as NORAD, NATO, ABCAZ, US /Can emergency response to crises act. not to mention the hundreds of UN charters we signed on to. Todays military can support a few of our commitments but not all at once.  

I suggest the arctic circle being Canada's priority theater. That's the next point of conflict. America can take care of the pacific along with help from new Zealand, Australia, Britain and France. We're also trying to woo the Asean countries to our cause because they're just as weary of China's increasing malign influences in the region, laying vast claims of territory of the indo pacific and militarizing island reefs.  

Edited July 8, 2018 by paxrom

[paxamericana]

54 minutes ago, Zeitgeist said:

I still think you have to factor the heavy cost of resettling refugees that Canada is paying into your equation of countries’ contributions to world security.  It’s not factored in as a contribution to NATO, but it makes NATO’s work a hell of a lot easier. 

Uh your PM is the one doing all that. He's the one advocating for an open border. They have to cross through us before they get to you so actually it's the other way around, you should be paying us for steaming the migrants that you're openly inviting. 

“To those fleeing persecution, terror & war, Canadians will welcome you, regardless of your faith. Diversity is our strength #WelcomeToCanada.”

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2017/aug/25/justin-trudeau-forced-to-backtrack-on-open-invitation-to-refugees

Edited July 8, 2018 by paxrom

[Army Guy]

1 minute ago, paxrom said:

I suggest the arctic circle being Canada's priority theater. That's the next point of conflict. America can take care of the pacific along with help from new Zealand, Australia, Britain and France. 

I agree that we should have more presence in the artic, there was a plan by the cons to achieve some of that, by constructing some ARCTIC FOBS, that would have ground troops to patrol, some drones as well as an expanded Inuit Arctic Rangers force..as well as some enlarged southern Bases in Yukon, Nunavut,  NWT, etc that would have a larger presence such as fighters, transport aircraft to handle resupply. but that never really materialized , today the defense of the North is a reserve force responsibility, along with some Airforce assets. 

 

DND prime concern is NATO/ NORAD commitments still hung up in Europe,  NATO is starting to concentrate on the Pacific following the US in lead hence the ABCAZ, America, British, Canadian Australian, new Zealand  defensive pack....The pacific is going to require a whole new force make up, ie no more Large Armored formations...Something that is going to take years to get everyone on the same page...

[paxamericana]

2 hours ago, bush_cheney2004 said:

 

Difficult ?   They just don't want to do it.   It's "American style" and the Liberals would rather pay penalties than complete defence procurement contracts.   It also changes with each government.   Canadian Forces have to do more with less and less. 

I don't blame them, they suffer from the same mal-content of public support for their military. The same was true for us not too long ago. 

Canada need strong leadership and frankly Trudeau isn't cutting butter.  They need strong leadership that can bring bi-partisan support for their military. 

Edited July 8, 2018 by paxrom

[paxamericana]

1 minute ago, Army Guy said:

I agree that we should have more presence in the artic, there was a plan by the cons to achieve some of that, by constructing some ARCTIC FOBS, that would have ground troops to patrol, some drones as well as an expanded Inuit Arctic Rangers force..as well as some enlarged southern Bases in Yukon, Nunavut,  NWT, etc that would have a larger presence such as fighters, transport aircraft to handle resupply. but that never really materialized , today the defense of the North is a reserve force responsibility, along with some Airforce assets. 

 

DND prime concern is NATO/ NORAD commitments still hung up in Europe,  NATO is starting to concentrate on the Pacific following the US in lead hence the ABCAZ, America, British, Canadian Australian, new Zealand  defensive pack....The pacific is going to require a whole new force make up, ie no more Large Armored formations...Something that is going to take years to get everyone on the same page...

The Chinese were trying to buy their way into the Arctic council but Uncle Sam stopped them. 

"Denmark spurned Chinese offer for Greenland base over security 

Danish politicians did not want to jeopardise their country’s relationship with the United States, Copenhagen’s main ally, by granting another power a potentially military foothold in Greenland, the sources told Reuters.

"

https://uk.reuters.com/article/uk-denmark-china-greenland-base-idUKKBN1782E2

[Queenmandy85]

40 minutes ago, Army Guy said:

My idea of a "strong" military would be one that is around 125-150 000 troops, with a budget in the mid 40- 50 bil....

So you would put up 150,000 troops against an invader of over 2 million? The Canadian army is good, but not that good. My idea of a strong military is 4.3 million (Swiss conscript model) with 8000 main battle tanks, 6000 combat aircraft ...or 100 icbm's with independently targeted multiple warheads in the 200KT range.

The only country capable of invading Canada is the US. That is simple logistics. That is a fact. So do you advocate sponding 9.5 trillion dollars on somerthing that will not happen? Our Defence Policy should be based on what Canadian voters want, not what the American voters want. If we are kicked out of NATO, are we in any greater danger than we are now? Are you willing to commit YOUR own money to creating a force that can defend this country? Don't commit other peoples money to get what you want. Canadians don't want nuclear weapons. Canadians do not want conscription and they sure as heck don't want to pay higher taxes. 

I am grateful to to Americans for their generosity but should their generosity and patience wear thin, I understand. We will deal with that. In the mean time, we will continue to do what we can to help. 

[paxamericana]

6 minutes ago, Queenmandy85 said:

So you would put up 150,000 troops against an invader of over 2 million? The Canadian army is good, but not that good. My idea of a strong military is 4.3 million (Swiss conscript model) with 8000 main battle tanks, 6000 combat aircraft ...or 100 icbm's with independently targeted multiple warheads in the 200KT range.

The only country capable of invading Canada is the US. That is simple logistics. That is a fact. So do you advocate sponding 9.5 trillion dollars on somerthing that will not happen? Our Defence Policy should be based on what Canadian voters want, not what the American voters want. If we are kicked out of NATO, are we in any greater danger than we are now? Are you willing to commit YOUR own money to creating a force that can defend this country? Don't commit other peoples money to get what you want. Canadians don't want nuclear weapons. Canadians do not want conscription and they sure as heck don't want to pay higher taxes. 

I am grateful to to Americans for their generosity but should their generosity and patience wear thin, I understand. We will deal with that. In the mean time, we will continue to do what we can to help. 

Look, we already invaded you, get over it. In fact I invaded Vancouver two months ago. Spent 3 grand invading you. 

Edited July 8, 2018 by paxrom

[Queenmandy85]

3 minutes ago, paxrom said:

Look, we already invaded you, get over it. In fact I invaded Vancouver two m9nths ago. Spent 3 grand invading you. 

And see how painless that was and we didn't have to spend a Canadian dime to try and stop you. I hope you had a great time. I wish I could invade Vancouver more often.

Edited July 8, 2018 by Queenmandy85
Atrocious spelling

[Argus]

10 minutes ago, Queenmandy85 said:

The only country capable of invading Canada is the US. That is simple logistics.

We have a northern border, too, with Russia. And isn't global warming melting the ice away? Isn't there supposed to be such a change there could be a passage there in the near future? What about all the resources in the north we've claimed? The boundaries up there have no agreement. Russia claims much of it, including what we've claimed. Suppose as the ice melts they move into 'our' territory and start exploring for oil, and actually find it? What do we do? Send a polite note? Because right now there's nothing else we could do. We don't' even have an icebreaker capable of travelling up there, nor any other kind of ship, except in summer. The Russians do, though, and are building more. They anticipate there will be a lot of natural resources that will become very valuable as the ice melts.

[Queenmandy85]

If Russia did that, then either we need that strong military i described, or we try and stop them with international law. Win or lose, I think the legal response would be less costly in blood and treasure. That is not what my gut tells me but my brain says so.

[Army Guy]

15 minutes ago, Queenmandy85 said:

So you would put up 150,000 troops against an invader of over 2 million? The Canadian army is good, but not that good. My idea of a strong military is 4.3 million (Swiss conscript model) with 8000 main battle tanks, 6000 combat aircraft ...or 100 icbm's with independently targeted multiple warheads in the 200KT range.

The only country capable of invading Canada is the US. That is simple logistics. That is a fact. So do you advocate sponding 9.5 trillion dollars on somerthing that will not happen? Our Defence Policy should be based on what Canadian voters want, not what the American voters want. If we are kicked out of NATO, are we in any greater danger than we are now? Are you willing to commit YOUR own money to creating a force that can defend this country? Don't commit other peoples money to get what you want. Canadians don't want nuclear weapons. Canadians do not want conscription and they sure as heck don't want to pay higher taxes. 

I am grateful to to Americans for their generosity but should their generosity and patience wear thin, I understand. We will deal with that. In the mean time, we will continue to do what we can to help. 

Another Canadian myth started by the liberals , no doubt in a effort to curb our military spending and you bought it all hook line a sinker....you talk simple logistics, and yet our nation is under attack or under threat everyday by dozens of nations, these attacks do not have to come in the form of assault boats and bombers, but rather cyber, finical, economical , political, and terrorism, even threats of a military nature towards of foreign interests. not to mention threats that are against  NATO countries,  threats to NORAD, ABCAZ, and other defensive agreements we have signed....Canada has responsibilities to more than just itself...and yet you have mention nothing about them, nor have you asked why are we part of them , do we need them, nothing....your main concern is what conscription....not since WWII have we had conscription....and look what it almost did to the country....

Not only am I willing to spend my tax dollars on it, but also put my life on the line towards defending it....me  and millions of other Canadians that have also served think it would be a good idea....since when do we have a choice on what our tax dollars are spent on, I mean I can think of dozens of liberal good will programs that I would rather not spend my share of my tax dollars....And yet you would be content to live under that protection of that military force, criticize it when you wanted, whine and complain about as we do today....because that what a lot of Canadians do, whine and complain about something they have no control over...like taxes, or what the US is doing around the world....I know you don't see that practice being hypocritical , but I do...

It's time to deal with it....The US has did everything but scream in your ear, they are tired of lifting all the weight....but as Canadians we will leave it until the last minute and then run around and do nothing.....blaming the US for their actions....Your not grateful….your pissed that they are asking.....for Canada to get it's shit together , how dare them assholes....make me spend money on defense....what it going to be like when they tell us.... Grateful people do not bite the hands that have been doing all the work....

[paxamericana]

17 minutes ago, Army Guy said:

Another Canadian myth started by the liberals , no doubt in a effort to curb our military spending and you bought it all hook line a sinker....you talk simple logistics, and yet our nation is under attack or under threat everyday by dozens of nations, these attacks do not have to come in the form of assault boats and bombers, but rather cyber, finical, economical , political, and terrorism, even threats of a military nature towards of foreign interests. not to mention threats that are against  NATO countries,  threats to NORAD, ABCAZ, and other defensive agreements we have signed....Canada has responsibilities to more than just itself...and yet you have mention nothing about them, nor have you asked why are we part of them , do we need them, nothing....your main concern is what conscription....not since WWII have we had conscription....and look what it almost did to the country....

Not only am I willing to spend my tax dollars on it, but also put my life on the line towards defending it....me  and millions of other Canadians that have also served think it would be a good idea....since when do we have a choice on what our tax dollars are spent on, I mean I can think of dozens of liberal good will programs that I would rather not spend my share of my tax dollars....And yet you would be content to live under that protection of that military force, criticize it when you wanted, whine and complain about as we do today....because that what a lot of Canadians do, whine and complain about something they have no control over...like taxes, or what the US is doing around the world....I know you don't see that practice being hypocritical , but I do...

It's time to deal with it....The US has did everything but scream in your ear, they are tired of lifting all the weight....but as Canadians we will leave it until the last minute and then run around and do nothing.....blaming the US for their actions....Your not grateful….your pissed that they are asking.....for Canada to get it's shit together , how dare them assholes....make me spend money on defense....what it going to be like when they tell us.... Grateful people do not bite the hands that have been doing all the work....

I honestly think the best case scenario is to make running for public office require military service. At least that way we don't get shit head in office who put our military in a position of jeopardy and then send 18 year old to fight because they couldnt fight the soft threats infront of their face and let it manifest into a physical threat.  

Edited July 8, 2018 by paxrom

[Queenmandy85]

Army Guy, I think you are mistaken regarding my personal views on the military. I have been advocating for a strong military force since the dark days of Paul Hellyer in the 1960's. I too would rather pay significantly higher taxes to re-build the Forces but like you, I am a voice in the wilderness. After 50 years of campaigning, I still see no improvement. I called on Stockwell Day when he was leader of the Canadian Alliance to re-build the Canadian Forces and received a PFO letter in response. Same with Pearson, Mulroney, and Harper. The difference between you and I is I understand the difficulty governments have. A robust defence requires high taxes and Preston Manning screwed that. Of all the politicians I have known, he was the worst. He was free with glib words but he was the worst example of a lying politician. (end rant here).The pressure restricting an enhanced defence policy comes from the voters, specifically taxpayers.

The proposal by Paxrom

2 hours ago, paxrom said:

I honestly think the best case scenario is to make running for public office require military service. At least that way we don't get shit head in office who put our military in a position of jeopardy and then send 18 year old to fight because they couldnt fight the soft threats infront of their face and let it manifest into a physical threat.  

I have reservations regarding this proposal. Paul Hellyer, Mike Pearson and Pierre Trudeau all served in the Canadian Army. They were the architects of our current problems in Defence Policy. I am not saying military service should be a disqualifacation, merely it has no bearing.