Canada can't compete in NATO air exercise because none of our aircraft can fly

[Dougie93]

3 minutes ago, BeaverFever said:

There has even quite been 35 years of pax Americana.  Preceding that was preceded by nearly half century of Cold War, which was also fought via proxies 

the Cold War was the Pax Americana, the Soviets never breached it

[BeaverFever]

19 minutes ago, Dougie93 said:

the Cold War was the Pax Americana, the Soviets never breached it

 

[Dougie93]

Just now, BeaverFever said:

 

it was never an equal contest

the Soviets could never compete

America spending 5% GDP on the military

the Soviets spending 50% of their GDP on the military

that is not a tie

which is how the Soviets buckled under the weight of it

 

 

 

[BeaverFever]

4 hours ago, Dougie93 said:

it was never an equal contest

the Soviets could never compete

America spending 5% GDP on the military

the Soviets spending 50% of their GDP on the military

that is not a tie

which is how the Soviets buckled under the weight of it

 

 

 

The Cold War was not Pax Americana. Pax Americana is what ensued after the Cold War was won….and ended when US squandered its legitimacy on their blatantly fraudulent and fabricated Iraq war under Bush Jr. 

[CdnFox]

53 minutes ago, BeaverFever said:

The Cold War was not Pax Americana. Pax Americana is what ensued after the Cold War was won….and ended when US squandered its legitimacy on their blatantly fraudulent and fabricated Iraq war under Bush Jr. 

Sigh. It started before the cold war was even a thing.

Pax Americana^[1][2][3] (Latin for "American Peace", modeled after Pax Romana and Pax Britannica; also called the Long Peace) is a term applied to the concept of relative peace in the Western Hemisphere and later in the world after the end of World War II in 1945, when the United States^[4] became the world's dominant economic, cultural, and military power.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pax_Americana

Also

https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/Pax Americana

Pax Americana

: American peace

—used for the period of relative tranquility from circa 1945 to the present day in regions to which U.S. power has extended

 

Now - i know it's hard for you to read when there isn't any pictures,  but you could at least TRY to look things up before you display your lack of knowledge? Is that really asking too much?

 

Edited June 17, 2023 by CdnFox

[BeaverFever]

14 hours ago, CdnFox said:

Sigh. It started before the cold war was even a thing.

Pax Americana^[1][2][3] (Latin for "American Peace", modeled after Pax Romana and Pax Britannica; also called the Long Peace) is a term applied to the concept of relative peace in the Western Hemisphere and later in the world after the end of World War II in 1945, when the United States^[4] became the world's dominant economic, cultural, and military power.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pax_Americana

Also

https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/Pax Americana

Pax Americana

: American peace

—used for the period of relative tranquility from circa 1945 to the present day in regions to which U.S. power has extended

 

Now - i know it's hard for you to read when there isn't any pictures,  but you could at least TRY to look things up before you display your lack of knowledge? Is that really asking too much?

 

Oh well I stand corrected on this one minor point, no need for you to be an a-hole about it and resort to insults now is there?

[CdnFox]

19 minutes ago, BeaverFever said:

Oh well I stand corrected on this one minor point, no need for you to be an a-hole about it and resort to insults now is there?

You are wrong about everything you write,  and yeah - i do need to be an ahole about it. Turns out you don't respond well when someone's nice about it. Pieces of crap really shouldn't be mad about being treated like pieces of crap.

[Dougie93]

16 hours ago, BeaverFever said:

The Cold War was not Pax Americana. Pax Americana is what ensued after the Cold War was won….and ended when US squandered its legitimacy on their blatantly fraudulent and fabricated Iraq war under Bush Jr. 

I would suggest that you are conflating two distinct paradigms

the Pax Americana dates from 1945

then upon the collapse of the Soviet Union,  came the so called Unipolar Moment

what Francis Fukuyama mistakenly named  the End of History

but the squandering you invoke was all within the arc of the Pax Americana

[BeaverFever]

1 hour ago, CdnFox said:

You are wrong about everything you write,  and yeah - i do need to be an ahole about it. Turns out you don't respond well when someone's nice about it. Pieces of crap really shouldn't be mad about being treated like pieces of crap.

Not true. You are the one who usually makes false and baseless claims, especially about historical and economic topics and get corrected by me, which inevitably leads you to resorting to insults and personal attacks.  
 

You’re acting like an ahole because it’s your nature.  A large part of conservatism is centred around attacking people, and believing that all who dare disagree with you are objectively “pieces of crap” who MUST be treated as such

[BeaverFever]

1 hour ago, Dougie93 said:

I would suggest that you are conflating two distinct paradigms

the Pax Americana dates from 1945

then upon the collapse of the Soviet Union,  came the so called Unipolar Moment

what Francis Fukuyama mistakenly named  the End of History

but the squandering you invoke was all within the arc of the Pax Americana

Fair enough on the technical meaning of Pax Americana but nonetheless I don’t think there will ever be a shooting war with Russia or China it will mostly be posturing and the shooting will come via war through proxies which will be conducted by west via allied coalitions. I don’t think we’ve seen anything to contradict that. 

[Dougie93]

10 minutes ago, BeaverFever said:

 I don’t think there will ever be a shooting war with Russia or China

fair enough

but if that is the case

then there is no requirement for Canada to be maintaining any power projection capability whatsoever

rather all that is needed is a Militia in the face of insurrection against the Crown

[CdnFox]

3 hours ago, BeaverFever said:

Not true.

Very true. As we've seen here.  Just because you disagree with a statement doesnt' make it false or untrue.

You're dishonest at best.  I've been providing proof since your first post we interacted with that you're absolutely incorrect. Not just that your opinions are different but that what you say is factually wrong, as i have again here. The vast majority of the time you try to make some excuse or question the source, which is usually excellent and the information easily verified elsewhere.

Sorry kiddo - act like an ignorant piece of crap and get treated like one. If you knew twice as much as you thought you did you'd still be wrong 99 percent of the time. Which would be fine, we can't all be rocket scientists but you're arrogant and ignorant about it as well. 

It's too bad the fruits of your stupidity aren't to your liking but that's not really my fault. Sorry.

[BeaverFever]

1 hour ago, Dougie93 said:

fair enough

but if that is the case

then there is no requirement for Canada to be maintaining any power projection capability whatsoever

rather all that is needed is a Militia in the face of insurrection against the Crown

Well the allies certainly don’t “need” Canada to confront  Russia and China except maybe for our NORAD responsibilities

And while there are many good arguments for Canada to project force abroad in overseas operations like Kosovo, Afghanistan etc. we don’t “need” to participate in those things. We could just hide from the world’s conflicts or just send money instead of  troops. Im not saying that’s the best course but it’s possible. 
 

In other news yesterday they announced we’re finally sending a tank squadron to our NATO force in Latvia….except they’re only sending 15 tanks wheras I believe a squadron is supposed to be 19 and it sounds like the tanks are being pulled from 2 different regiments amd they’re the 2A4M instead of the more powerful 2A6M and it won’t be operational until NEXT Spring. . So it definitely sounds like this force is being desperately scraped together 

[Dougie93]

28 minutes ago, BeaverFever said:

In other news yesterday they announced we’re finally sending a tank squadron to our NATO force in Latvia….except they’re only sending 15 tanks wheras I believe a squadron is supposed to be 19 and it sounds like the tanks are being pulled from 2 different regiments amd they’re the 2A4M instead of the more powerful 2A6M and it won’t be operational until NEXT Spring. . So it definitely sounds like this force is being desperately scraped together 

the cobbled together battle groups in the Baltics are not actually intended to fight

they are not integrated with a logistics tail

there's no depth there, the Russians could trap them in a pocket by way of the Suwalki Gap

those troops are what is called a "Tripwire force"

"The tripwire force is a military force smaller than that of a potential adversary, which is designed to signal the defending side's commitment to an armed response to future aggression without triggering a security spiral."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tripwire_force

Edited June 18, 2023 by Dougie93

[BeaverFever]

17 minutes ago, CdnFox said:

Very true. As we've seen here.  Just because you disagree with a statement doesnt' make it false or untrue.

You're dishonest at best.  I've been providing proof since your first post we interacted with that you're absolutely incorrect. Not just that your opinions are different but that what you say is factually wrong, as i have again here. The vast majority of the time you try to make some excuse or question the source, which is usually excellent and the information easily verified elsewhere.

Sorry kiddo - act like an ignorant piece of crap and get treated like one. If you knew twice as much as you thought you did you'd still be wrong 99 percent of the time. Which would be fine, we can't all be rocket scientists but you're arrogant and ignorant about it as well. 

It's too bad the fruits of your stupidity aren't to your liking but that's not really my fault. Sorry.

Lol OMG What a load of bullsh1t.  You often DON’T link to back your claims and when you do it’s mostly to non-credible overtly partisan sources,  or OPINION pieces, links to pieces that at hand have nothing to do with the argument claim you’re trying to make.   You’re just another in a long line of right wing hacks that who resort to the same tactics and then try to bluster their BS through behind a wall of insults and personal attacks meant to distract from their shoddy arguments  and false claims  

Nice try pal. 

[CdnFox]

7 minutes ago, BeaverFever said:

Lol OMG What a load of bullsh1t. 

Absolute truth little turd. 

I frequently link to information - especially when i'm disproving something stupid you say. As i did here.

I'm surprised you didn't fall back on your usual bullshit of claiming the sources weren't good enough. (that's why i gave two)

I've given you plenty of chances and all you do is try to double down and bullshit your way out, and it never works.

Sorry - crap brained trolls can't be angry that you get treated like a crap brained troll. 

[BeaverFever]

22 minutes ago, Dougie93 said:

the cobbled together battle groups in the Baltics are not actually intended to fight

they are not integrated with a logistics tail

there's no depth there, the Russians could trap them in a pocket by way of the Sulwalki Gap

those troops are what is called a "Tripwire force"

"The tripwire force is a military force smaller than that of a potential adversary, which is designed to signal the defending side's commitment to an armed response to future aggression without triggering a security spiral."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tripwire_force

That is the case currently.  But they are working under a mandate to build it to a fully operational and combat capable brigade. Right now the NATO force is fully embedded in a Latvian brigade 

Edited June 18, 2023 by BeaverFever

[Dougie93]

5 minutes ago, BeaverFever said:

That is the case currently.  But they are working under a mandate to build it to a fully operational and combat capable brigade. Right now the NATO force is fully embedded in a Latvian brigade 

again, it is all about the terrain

there is no depth there, in the event of war, they would be cut off by way of the Suwalki Gap to Kaliningrad

the Baltic states are in essence the West Berlin of Cold War Two

it is not a defensible position, merely a tripwire force, or "glass plate" between peace & war

[BeaverFever]

9 minutes ago, CdnFox said:

Absolute truth little turd. 

I frequently link to information - especially when i'm disproving something stupid you say. As i did here.

I'm surprised you didn't fall back on your usual bullshit of claiming the sources weren't good enough. (that's why i gave two)

I've given you plenty of chances and all you do is try to double down and bullshit your way out, and it never works.

Sorry - crap brained trolls can't be angry that you get treated like a crap brained troll. 

Nope you’re just another right wing internet bullshitter who hides behind insults and personal attacks. We’ve seen your kind on here many times before 

[Dougie93]

17 minutes ago, BeaverFever said:

That is the case currently.  But they are working under a mandate to build it to a fully operational and combat capable brigade. Right now the NATO force is fully embedded in a Latvian brigade 

in case you are not aware of the Sulwalki Gap

see the narrow gap between Belarus & Kaliningrad

that's the only line of communication to the forces in the Baltic States

so the Russian 1st Guards Tank Army would not have to fight them

it would merely cross the Suwalki Gao to Kaliningrad

this would encircle the forces in the Baltic states

forcing them to surrender, or evacuate by sea in Dunkirk style

thus building that force up above a tripwire is counterproductive

in fact, a large combat force which could be trapped there, actually invites the Russians to encircle it

[BeaverFever]

8 minutes ago, Dougie93 said:

again, it is all about the terrain

there is no depth there, in the event of war, they would be cut off by way of the Suwalki Gap to Kaliningrad

the Baltic states are in essence the West Berlin of Cold War Two

it is not a defensible position, merely a tripwire force, or "glass plate" between peace & war

I’ve heard that argument but not sure how widely accepted that is within NATO.  The idea that the Baltic states are fundamentally indefensible makes sense in theory I suppose, assuming Russia has the resources to adequately defend all its other NATO borders and still have enough resources for an invasion that could win regardless of the size of the defending force. If true though then there would be no point in building up the NATO presence in that region to brigade strength at all a smaller tripwire force be just as useful as a larger one 

[Dougie93]

2 minutes ago, BeaverFever said:

 assuming Russia has the resources to adequately defend all its other NATO borders

a NATO incursion into Russian territory would very likely incite a theatre thermonuclear response

so I seriously doubt NATO has any intent to go on the offensive into Russia itself

[Dougie93]

22 minutes ago, BeaverFever said:

I’ve heard that argument but not sure how widely accepted that is within NATO. 

I would submit that this is actually a maritime confrontation

thus in the event of war between Russia & NATO

you would not likely see much manoeuvre across the trace between land forces

rather the conflict would escalate straight to the high seas

a submarine war from the Barents into the Atlantic across the G-I-UK Gap

which Canada could actually contribute a significant force to, with the 12 FFH-330 ASW frigates

[BeaverFever]

21 minutes ago, Dougie93 said:

a NATO incursion into Russian territory would very likely incite a theatre thermonuclear response

so I seriously doubt NATO has any intent to go on the offensive into Russia itself

But you don’t doubt that Russia would invade NATO territory despite similar consequences?  Russians are still rational actors. 

[Dougie93]

1 minute ago, BeaverFever said:

But you don’t doubt that Russia would invade NATO territory despite similar consequences?  Russians are still rational actors. 

the weaker force is the one which will use thermonuclear weapons

in Cold War One that was NATO, but Cold War Two the positions are reversed

moreover, NATO is not going to go nuclear over Latvia

but Russia certainly would go nuclear over Murmansk