More than a decade ago, the army had a plan to rebuild. It went nowhere.

[Moonlight Graham]

On 1/8/2023 at 4:32 PM, TreeBeard said:

Instead of increasing spending to increase our military, maybe we should scale back the scope of the military to suit its budget.   

What scope?  We don't do anything, have enough soldiers, or enough equipment.  Unless you want to be America's biznatch?

[BeaverFever]

5 hours ago, blackbird said:

I quoted several verses above that show Jesus was referred to as the "word" in John ch1.  The word refers to the whole Bible.  The Bible as a whole is about Jesus Christ.  There are many prophecies in the Old Testament that are referring to him.  The New Testament has a lot about Jesus including the fact he is God and the Old Testament refers throughout to God and what God said.

The New Testament is closely connected to the Old Testament.  Both parts are important and inter-related.  That involves theology.  God inspired men to write both, the same God.

The Old Testament is based on the various Bronze Age religions practiced in the levant and near east around or shortly after after 400 BCE and first written down in century that followed. This formed the bases for the religion that we know today as Judaism.
 

 The New Testament’ is the story of a Jewish person named “Joshua” who lived 400 years after the Old Testament was written. The story is also an amalgamation of many near eastern religions and existing Jewish legends hence has many similarities. Although we call this religion Christianity today the first followers simply considered themselves to be Jews and the religion was practiced quite differently from town to town and church to church with some early “Christians” even teaching things like reincarnation  and there was no song “Bible” with am official version until 325 AD when the Roman emperor Constantine assembled the various Christian religious leaders to the Council of Nicaea where they were required to decide on an official version and denounce the rest as heresy  

 

So I guess if you’re going to say any one person wrote the bible it was Constantine  

 

[blackbird]

12 hours ago, BeaverFever said:

The story is also an amalgamation of many near eastern religions and existing Jewish legends hence has many similarities.

12 hours ago, BeaverFever said:

The Old Testament is based on the various Bronze Age religions practiced in the levant and near east around or shortly after after 400 BCE and first written down in century that followed.

No.  If you Google the history of the Bible, you will find on countless sources that the Old Testament was written over a period of about 1400 years ending about 400 B.C.  It was not based on Bronze Age religions.   It was written by the Jewish Old Testament prophets beginning with Moses.  The were all inspired by God to write the books of the Old Testament.  This O.T. was actually the Hebrew Bible or the Holy Scriptures of people of Israel.  This is evident if you read the books of the O.T.  It records the history of the Jews from the time of Abraham and how the twelve tribes of Israel were formed.  How they went into captivity in Egypt and how they were delivered by God working through Moses.  How they settled in the Promises Land and all the struggles.  Then their captivity in Babylon and later released and return to their promised land.  The books Genesis, Exodus, and many of the following books describe all this in detail.

Reference to early theologians and writers also often verify which books belong in the N.T. (Greek manuscripts since it was written in Greek) and were accepted.  Early sermons and notes might also have contributed some history about what books belonged in the N.T. in the early centuries.  For centuries now the manuscripts behind the King James Bible have been referred to as the Received Text or Textus Receptus.

If you read the four gospels and the epistles you won't find anything that even remotely suggests any connection with near eastern religions.   The N.T. is a clear record of the life of Jesus and his resurrection from a number of different writers.  Jesus is the fulfilment of O.T. prophecies.  Other writings that try to discredit the Bible are not the right sources of information.  The books of the N.T. were written during the first century and accepted by the believers over a longer period of time.  I think they were accepted by the various churches in the first few centuries based on what the books of the N.T. said and heretical books were rejected.  Had nothing to do with Constantine although the some Catholics might make that claim or others might say that.  There were some heretics in the earlier centuries. There have always been conflicting views of a lot of things which is why there are many denominations, but most believe certain basic doctrines.

 

Edited January 10 by blackbird

[TreeBeard]

20 hours ago, RedDog said:

Taxpayer. I bought and paid for it. I hired, trained and employed those in the service.

So you include yourself in the “whiny, limp-wristed Canadians” who wouldn’t choose to serve then?

[Army Guy]

On 1/9/2023 at 12:28 PM, Queenmandy85 said:

The F-35 has one of the same drawbacks as the Avro Arrow. They are too expensive. Time will tell if they are worth it. Lets hope we never have to find out.

F-35 is one of the cheapest 5 th generation aircraft in history, in fact it is cheaper than the new F-15EX, and way cheaper than the Euro fighter, Rafale... and those are 4.5 gen. You will not get the capabilities you get with the f-35 in any 4.5 gen aircraft on the market today... 

[Army Guy]

On 1/9/2023 at 1:09 PM, Queenmandy85 said:

What do we plan to do with it? In an age of SLBM's, ICBM's, the F-35 is already obsolete. They are too expensive to risk in a local conflict in the Middle East and have no role in a Peace Keeping mission.

Why do we build them if your not going to use them. 

[Queenmandy85]

3 minutes ago, Army Guy said:

Why do we build them if your not going to use them. 

I have wondered about that myself. It was one of the arguments used against the Arrow. Who needs interceptors in the age of ICBM's. Personally, I have always advocated for Canada to have a large, well equipped military, partly because we should never be in a position of depending on the US, or anyone else. Nobody cares what I want.

Part of President Reagan's genius was the ability to convince the Soviets he was quite ready to turn the USSR into a glass plate and ready to accept the consequences for the USA.

[Army Guy]

On 1/9/2023 at 1:58 PM, Queenmandy85 said:

If I understand you correctly, you are saying Canada needs to build a nuclear deterrence to balance  that American dominance in NATO. A war like the Ukraine is measured in months and years. If Russia wins in Ukraine, they would come after NATO countries next, if it were not for the British, French and American nuclear deterrence. If Russia or China attacks a NATO country, that war will be measured in hours, and the aftermath in weeks. Chieftain tanks, F-35's, and frigates will have no effect on the outcome.

Why does Canada need nuclear weapons, there are already to many in the world, we will never have a seat at the table ever, so why do we need to have nukes ? 

Conventional weapons' do have an effect they give your enemy pause, they will not attack if your strong, and everyone knows Nuclear warfare is the end of days no one is going to survive, even those without nuclear weapons', radiation will be carried over the globe by air currents, and all life will be snuffed out in a slow agonizing death, radiation poisoning. Better to go out at ground zero. 

There might be one or two nations that would use nukes, Iran might be one of them, or some terrorist group... but everyone else knows how it ends. 

[Army Guy]

On 1/9/2023 at 2:09 PM, BeaverFever said:

As a country the Canadian people have a very decent and respected moral compass that isn’t determined by whatever politician is in charge. Don’t confuse your hatred of Trudeau with a hatred for Canada. 

You should have said as long as they have an interest in the subject they have a decent moral compass, where do you think our compass sits with how we treat Veterans, or homeless, of the poor, our indigenous people without proper housing or proper water to drink, our whole security apparatus. maybe we should reevaluate our status...  

[Dougie93]

17 minutes ago, Army Guy said:

Why does Canada need nuclear weapons, there are already to many in the world, we will never have a seat at the table ever, so why do we need to have nukes ? 

Canada has a seat at the table

bilaterally through NORAD

and multilaterally through NATO

Canada is in the chain of command at NORTHCOM Colorado Springs

RCAF fighters have always prepared to deliver the B-61 tactical nuclear bombs in Europe as necessary

Canada has not withdrawn from these alliances, so the mission set has not changed

F-35 is in fact a mini stealth bomber which can deliver two B-61 thermonuclear bombs internally

this is Canada's share of the work, as part of the NORAD & NATO nuclear deterrents

withdrawing from NORAD & NATO would not give Canada more influence

never mind that any Canadian government which tried to do that would be overthrown by the CIA

Edited January 10 by Dougie93

[Army Guy]

5 minutes ago, Dougie93 said:

Canada has a seat at the table

bilaterally through NORAD

and multilaterally through NATO

Canada is in the chain of command at NORTHCOM Colorado Springs

RCAF fighters have always prepared to deliver the B-61 tactical nuclear bombs in Europe as necessary

Canada has not withdrawn from these alliances, so the mission set has not changed

F-35 is in fact a mini stealth bomber which can deliver two B-61 thermonuclear bombs internally

this is Canada's share of the work, as part of the NORAD & NATO nuclear deterrents

withdrawing from NORAD & NATO would not give Canada more influence

never mind that any Canadian government which tried to do that would be overthrown by the CIA

We might think we have a seat at the table, but it is at the kiddy table, Yes we have a seat at NORAD, but that is a defense agreement of North America basically lets not forget who the boss is at that table. And while we do share command of the defense of NA, it is not an even split, US pays a majority of the bills and Assets...Mission is always there, just Canada is a light weight over all , it likes caring the badge of NORAD or NATO, but not paying or living up to the commitment. 

NATO yes we do have a seat at the table, but over the decades we have become a lesser member much like Belgium or Luxemburg. we don't have any presence in Europe that is of any importance, nor do we have much capability to get men or equipment over to Europe. Not to mention we are poorly equipped, and training is not what it use to be or as often... 

We need those defensive agreements, but more and more governments are swiping them aside for political gain, and Canadians i really don't care one way or the other...

I really don't think it would take the CIA to over throw our nation, couple rednecks from the west and some fire crackers should be enough...

[Dougie93]

34 minutes ago, Queenmandy85 said:

 Personally, I have always advocated for Canada to have a large, well equipped military, partly because we should never be in a position of depending on the US, or anyone else. Nobody cares what I want.

Canada is inherently dependent on the United States, nothing will change that

the United States is why Canadians are comparatively wealthy & secure

if you told Canadians that they had to give up their cushy lifestyles

just so they could have a large well equipped military ?

you government would be thrown out of office by the end of that day

[Dougie93]

Just now, Army Guy said:

We might think we have a seat at the table, but it is at the kiddy table,

you're sitting at the same table with the British in the Special Relationship

that's as high as Canada can go, there's no level Canada could attain above where it is now

[Dougie93]

5 minutes ago, Army Guy said:

nor do we have much capability to get men or equipment over to Europe. Not to mention we are poorly equipped, and training is not what it use to be or as often...

just another reason to buy F-35

it's a turnkey solution

if you don't have the best small army in the world anymore, no 4 CMBG

then plug & play with the American F-35 program is how Canada will have to interface at this juncture

[Army Guy]

5 minutes ago, Dougie93 said:

Canada is inherently dependent on the United States, nothing will change that

the United States is why Canadians are comparatively wealthy & secure

if you told Canadians that they had to give up their cushy lifestyles

just so they could have a large well equipped military ?

you government would be thrown out of office by the end of that day

We do not need a large military, what we need is one that is well equipped, with the latest in modern gear, most of those killed in Afghanistan was becasue of shiTT* equipment... if we as a nation are going to ask our boys and girls to go into a conflict we should bear the burden of making sure they have the right gear... and if we can not even do that, then this nation is not worth the effort to fight for. 

[Dougie93]

10 minutes ago, Army Guy said:

I really don't think it would take the CIA to over throw our nation, couple rednecks from the west and some fire crackers should be enough...

excuse me, but the Government of Canada does not even abide political dissent anymore, never mind insurrection

I have no doubt that Justin Trudeau & Co would crush any attempts by the rednecks with brute force

[Dougie93]

2 minutes ago, Army Guy said:

We do not need a large military, what we need is one that is well equipped

history says otherwise

the Canadian military has never been well equipped

no British military has ever been the best equipped in the world

the British did not rule the world by superior military hardware

the deciding factor in all British victories was the initiative of the officer corps

in Canada's case, starting with General Wolfe at Quebec n 1759

it wasn't that the British had better guns

it was only that General Wolfe made the troops hold fire until the French were only forty yards away

other troops might have fled in the face of the massive French column

but instead the French walked into a wall of fire at point blank range

thus how Nouvelle France died and Canada was born in its wake

[Dougie93]

39 minutes ago, Army Guy said:

. if we as a nation are going to ask our boys and girls to go into a conflict we should bear the burden of making sure they have the right gear... and if we can not even do that, then this nation is not worth the effort to fight for. 

it's always been thrown together at the last moment on a shoestring budget

13 October 1812

30,000 Americans invade Canada at Niagara

only 3,000 poorly equipped barely trained Canadian Militia standing in their way

the heroic leader General Brock is shot dead in the opening volley

at the sight of that, the Canadian Militia suddenly charges up the hill to meet the Americans on the high ground

then the Mohawks attack from the woods on the flank

at the sound of the Mohawk war cries, the Americans panic and start to flee

many of them jumping off the escarpment to their deaths, to escape being captured by the Mohawks

war is actually a contest of human will, not military hardware

ducimus

Edited January 10 by Dougie93

[Army Guy]

3 hours ago, Dougie93 said:

history says otherwise

the Canadian military has never been well equipped

no British military has ever been the best equipped in the world

the British did not rule the world by superior military hardware

the deciding factor in all British victories was the initiative of the officer corps

in Canada's case, starting with General Wolfe at Quebec n 1759

it wasn't that the British had better guns

it was only that General Wolfe made the troops hold fire until the French were only forty yards away

other troops might have fled in the face of the massive French column

but instead the French walked into a wall of fire at point blank range

thus how Nouvelle France died and Canada was born in its wake

All great examples Dougie, Yes we have always over come most of those obstacles that governments and our enemies have put in front of us it is what Canadian soldiers do it's all in my signature below on each post i make, and we (soldiers) have achieve great things in doing all of that.... but one also has to wonder what if we had great equipment, to match those great soldiers... what could we have accomplished then...

Also most of those great things we have accomplished with shitt* equipment has come at a cost, that cost is our comrades in arms...and frankly it sucks to think a human life , was not worth the cost of new equipment...I went to too many funerals Dougie, not to say something every chance i get.  

[Dougie93]

9 hours ago, Army Guy said:

All great examples Dougie, Yes we have always over come most of those obstacles that governments and our enemies have put in front of us it is what Canadian soldiers do it's all in my signature below on each post i make, and we (soldiers) have achieve great things in doing all of that.... but one also has to wonder what if we had great equipment, to match those great soldiers... what could we have accomplished then...

point being : culture is destiny

the British military culture is that the officers carry the day for the Empire, doing more with less

that's how the Empire prevailed : the British did everything on the cheap

the culture where the soldiers are the best equipped in the world ?

that's German military culture, which the Americans then adopted

[BeaverFever]

14 hours ago, Army Guy said:

You should have said as long as they have an interest in the subject they have a decent moral compass, where do you think our compass sits with how we treat Veterans, or homeless, of the poor, our indigenous people without proper housing or proper water to drink, our whole security apparatus. maybe we should reevaluate our status...  

Fair enough I never said we were flawless but let’s remember the context of the conversation. Nobody is suggesting that NATO should be lead by the countries with the best homeless policy (or abortion policy for blackbird). In terms of global affairs I think our moral compass is superior to the USA and therefore we should not leave the world order solely in the hands of Americans. 
 

Also as inadequate as Canadas policies may be in the areas you mention USA is still worse in those areas so it doesn’t contradict the original message that countries Like Canada should step and show leadership rather than leaving everything up to  the USA 

[Aristides]

Canada is not capable of defending itself on its own, that's why we need allies. To have an ally you have to be an ally which means you must be able to pull your weight. Many Canadians are screaming about the cost of 88 F-35's. Little Finland pop 5.5 million has ordered 64 of them. Now there is an ally worth having.

[Nefarious Banana]

3 minutes ago, Aristides said:

Canada is not capable of defending itself on its own, that's why we need allies. To have an ally you have to be an ally which means you must be able to pull your weight. Many Canadians are screaming about the cost of 88 F-35's. Little Finland pop 5.5 million has ordered 64 of them. Now there is an ally worth having.

Canada's been riding for free for a very long time.  Virtue signaling just doesn't cut it anymore.  Derision? What's that?

[Army Guy]

6 hours ago, BeaverFever said:

Fair enough I never said we were flawless but let’s remember the context of the conversation. Nobody is suggesting that NATO should be lead by the countries with the best homeless policy (or abortion policy for blackbird). In terms of global affairs I think our moral compass is superior to the USA and therefore we should not leave the world order solely in the hands of Americans. 
 

Also as inadequate as Canadas policies may be in the areas you mention USA is still worse in those areas so it doesn’t contradict the original message that countries Like Canada should step and show leadership rather than leaving everything up to  the USA 

It is not a competition on who's moral compass is superior, it is about choice really, the American people and governments choose to be the worlds policemen...we also had the same choices we could have been partners to that choice, we could have had a real seat at the table much like the UK, Australia, France etc ... But we choose not to have any of that, instead we choose to seat on the side lines and watch, and once in a while give them the finger....is that the moral compass your talking about... (signing the new NATO agreement and then days later telling the world we Canada has not intention in spending 2 % of our GDP on defense that is giving the finger) It is those acts that will put us at the bottom of the pile every time. 

I agree 100 % Canada should step up and show leadership, and not in all the easy topics but like you said in global defense as well. But that is an area we really lack is leadership, atleast leadership that is willing to step up and lead our nation...and make decision best for the country and not for their careers. 

[Dougie93]

On 1/10/2023 at 10:16 PM, Army Guy said:

Also most of those great things we have accomplished with shitt* equipment has come at a cost, that cost is our comrades in arms...and frankly it sucks to think a human life , was not worth the cost of new equipment...I went to too many funerals Dougie, not to say something every chance i get.  

it's not a funding issue

Canada spends $26.4 billion per year on defence

that is the 13th largest military budget in the world

Canada actually spends more on defence than Israel does

Canada spends more than Poland, Turkey, the Netherlands & Spain

Canada simply does not spend the money on weapons

most of the defence budget is spent on the bases

because the bases are regional employment projects for civilian contractors

handing out contracts to civilian firms is how you buy votes in Canada, so that is where the money goes

so even you doubled the defence budget, it would not result in more & better weapons for the troops

look at the lavish new defence headquarters in Ottawa

this is where Canada spends its defence dollars

Canada is a nation of bureaucrats, thus their well being trumps all other concerns

any other country of 38 million people would be armed to the teeth with $26.4 billion per year

but not pathologically bureaucratic Canada

Edited January 12 by Dougie93