BeaverFever Posted April 7 Author Report Posted April 7 18 hours ago, CdnFox said: I will speak slowly so you can understand. they.... are... relabelling.... spending... set .... aside..... years...ago... by.... trudeau..... to.... make....a..... claim.... of ....2 percent...but...it .... is..... not..... new..... spending. But…that…is…false...and….you…don’t…know…what…you’re…talking…about. 18 hours ago, CdnFox said: This is quite simple. When you relatable spending that already exists then it's not you spending. We didn't increase military spending to reach 2%. We just simply called things that weren't previously called military spending military spending now to give the appearance that we've had our 2% 1) Moving the coast guard to DND so it can be included as defence spending is 100% legitimate and something most of our allies already do. Same goes for dual use infrastructure 2)Note that we also hit NATO’s 20% target on actual capability spending 3) There is all kinds of new spending on pay increases, housing, base infrastructure as well as equipment which is well documented in this thread but like a typical MAGA whenever you accidentally read facts you don’t like you stab your brain with a q-tip to erase the memory. 4) you fundamentally don’t understand hiw military spending works. If Trudeau had announced new spending of $1 billion per year for the next 10 years, that’s exactly how it get counted, 1 billion every year for the next ten years it doesn’t count as $10 billion in year 1 only. Therefore tour claim that this is mkney “that Trudeau already set aside” and so shouldn’t count that is total BS. If it were true then Trudeau would have hit 2% in 2023 or 2024 when he announced a shit/ton of major acquisitions 18 hours ago, CdnFox said: I have never said that. LMAO you lying gaslighter that’s been your response to just about every spending announcement I have posted in this thread lately. 18 hours ago, CdnFox said: You stupidity on this is absolutely baffling. You are not the dumbest leftist on this board by any stretch and yet you're behaving in a fashion that makes me question if you're old enough to drive. If you say your budgeting $2 billion dollars to plant trees in order to fight climate change and then you later decide to claim that this two billion will be moved to the military spending budget you cannot at that point claim that this is new spending or new military spending. This is relabeling old spending Quit lying your ass off and get your head out of your butt because it's really getting annoying having to repeat the same basic concept that anyone in an elementary school could get their head around in 2 seconds And yet here you are making a COMPETELY FALSE CLAIM with $2 BILLION dollar price tag that YOU COMPLETELY MADE UP. So either you are so stupid you can’t parse simple facts without getting confirmation or you are a shameless liar TO BE ABSOLUTELY CLEAR: 1) There was no tree planting expenses “moved” from another department to military budget THAT IS INVENTED BY YOU 2) The military did not spend “$2 billion” to plant the handful of trees it did plant THAT IS MADE UP BY YOU You are without a doubt the most dishonest right wing poster on this site and probably the lowest in reading comprehension if you even read things at all, you make mistakes like this so often I have a hard time believing its all due to your dishonesty 1 Quote
CdnFox Posted April 7 Report Posted April 7 Just now, BeaverFever said: But…that…is…false...and….you…don’t…know…what…you’re…talking…about. Accept that it's true when I do And this has been proven a thousand times over to you including quotes from the actual defense ministry. They don't Hide it. You're just so emotionally invested in the liberals being perfect but your brain can't accept what is obviously true Just now, BeaverFever said: 1) Moving the coast guard to DND so it can be included as defence spending is 100% legitimate and something most of our allies already do. Same goes for dual use infrastructure Can you point to where I said it was illegitimate. In fact I said it might be perfectly legitimate other countries do it. So you're basically a lying piece of shit What I said is it's not new spending. And that is 100% true Everybody else here gets this. You're just 100% wrong and you're being a child. Honestly I had some respect for you in the past but watching you deny the truth that even the freaking government admits there's any credibility you have under the bus. Maybe you should change your name to Robo beaver 1 Quote "That which doesn't kill me... Had better start running."
Army Guy Posted April 8 Report Posted April 8 On 4/7/2026 at 12:10 AM, BeaverFever said: There is no surplus infrastructure in the far north for a massive influx of military personnel eating drinking shitting showering and consuming massive amounts of electricity and fuel 24/7/365. And why would there be given how exonerating and complicated it is to build anything up there? There are barely any year-round roads amd chronic housing shortages. The grocery prices in those places are already ridiculous. Much of what does exist is already heavily subsidized by federal government and the CAF. That seems pretty self-evident and I thought common knowledge. I recently saw a picture of an 8-pack of diet coke in Cambridge Bay it was $36 We are not talking about massive military growth, there are 300 Military personal at each location , it might surge to 1000, unless you have a source that states other wise...My problem with this whole solution the liberals have is making this a Military expenditure, when clear this is either a provincial, or federal failure to provide this communities what they need to survive in the way of funding........ and now Making it a military problem so they can account for NATO expenditures which Canada has known about these critical shortages for decades....and now suddenly we will throw money at it and count it as military infra structure...because it is convenient.... As for building anything, we built CFS alert the most northern facility in the world, i think we can build some hangers and barracks/ PMQ for the military... where is the 300 military people that are already there , where do they live... Not sure what the prices of food has to do with the topic, yes it is expensive, Military pers get bonus for just that thing.... Quote We, the willing, led by the unknowing, are doing the impossible for the ungrateful. We have now done so much for so long with so little, we are now capable of doing anything with nothing.
BeaverFever Posted April 9 Author Report Posted April 9 6 hours ago, Army Guy said: We are not talking about massive military growth, there are 300 Military personal at each location , it might surge to 1000, unless you have a source that states other wise...My problem with this whole solution the liberals have is making this a Military expenditure, when clear this is either a provincial, or federal failure to provide this communities what they need to survive in the way of funding........ and now Making it a military problem so they can account for NATO expenditures which Canada has known about these critical shortages for decades....and now suddenly we will throw money at it and count it as military infra structure...because it is convenient.... As for building anything, we built CFS alert the most northern facility in the world, i think we can build some hangers and barracks/ PMQ for the military... where is the 300 military people that are already there , where do they live... Not sure what the prices of food has to do with the topic, yes it is expensive, Military pers get bonus for just that thing.... Saying you can’t see how there is an infrastructure shortage in the arctic because there’s none in your southern town is like saying you can’t see how it is cold up there when it’s not cold in your town. It’s just a known fact. And military operations consume huge amounts of resources they run 24/7, they burn tons of fuel which all has to be trucked in or move by river barge or seasonal ice road over thousands of kilometres there’s no handy pipeline, no walmart stocked to the rafters. Every scrap of food, toilet paper, piece of wood, hammer, nail, drop of gas or anything else has to be transported in at huge cost. Everything is powered by diesel generators that rely on trucked/in diesel and so on. You think the housing shortage is bad here? It’s absurd up there. This problem has been talked about for decades. Quote
BeaverFever Posted April 9 Author Report Posted April 9 In other news Department of National Defence finally gets is its first Medium Altitude Long Endurance (MALE) drone, 2 years before the RCAF gets its MQ-9 SkyGuardian Say hello to the Coast Guard’s (formerly Transport Canada’s) Hermes 900 Starliner revealed in the Surveillance program livery. The primary role of the Starliner is still to support the National Aerial Surveillance Program formerly run by Transport Canada for maritime and arctic shipping surveillance. Originally planned to be based in Iqaluit but it’s currently unclear now if that is still the case Quote
Army Guy Posted April 9 Report Posted April 9 5 minutes ago, BeaverFever said: Saying you can’t see how there is an infrastructure shortage in the arctic because there’s none in your southern town is like saying you can’t see how it is cold up there when it’s not cold in your town. It’s just a known fact. And military operations consume huge amounts of resources they run 24/7, they burn tons of fuel which all has to be trucked in or move by river barge or seasonal ice road over thousands of kilometres there’s no handy pipeline, no walmart stocked to the rafters. Every scrap of food, toilet paper, piece of wood, hammer, nail, drop of gas or anything else has to be transported in at huge cost. Everything is powered by diesel generators that rely on trucked/in diesel and so on. You think the housing shortage is bad here? It’s absurd up there. This problem has been talked about for decades. So how is that the military responsibility...any shortage of critical infra structure is either a provincial or federal problem....And i am very skeptical that there is going to be any MASSIVE military build up as you think there is....it might surge to 1000 people, but improving military infra structure, sure fill your boots, but including road networks , civilian infra structure is nothing more than padding the NATO budget....when in reality it was the Provincial and federal governments that created this problem...not the military., Military has operated 300 people at each one of those main logistical hubs....with out any problem.....Now the have a means to spend money and kill two birds with one stone....have money to count as NATO spending and help out what they have neglect for decades.... Again your talking about cost, lets not start cying about how expensive it is to live there, Military people get extra bonus added to their pay to compensate....more military means more money flowing into the community...it is not a take take situation....military will provide good paying jobs to the community, along with a long list of other things.........But it is not the military job to provide for all their needs that is a provincial and federal job... How much of this money is going to other Inuit towns or villages, that do not have a military presence....None they will fix 5 northern communities and Canada will forget the rest...Is it tough to live up north sure it is....does it cost a lot...sure it is....but who is suppose to look after that stuff.....the governments...Once everyone heard about the federal government boosting their budget every man and dog is line to get what is theirs...and in the mean time the military will get a few trinkets and call it a day... 1 Quote We, the willing, led by the unknowing, are doing the impossible for the ungrateful. We have now done so much for so long with so little, we are now capable of doing anything with nothing.
CdnFox Posted April 9 Report Posted April 9 4 hours ago, BeaverFever said: In other news Department of National Defence finally gets is its first Medium Altitude Long Endurance (MALE) drone, 2 years before the RCAF gets its MQ-9 SkyGuardian Say hello to the Coast Guard’s (formerly Transport Canada’s) Hermes 900 Starliner revealed in the Surveillance program livery. The primary role of the Starliner is still to support the National Aerial Surveillance Program formerly run by Transport Canada for maritime and arctic shipping surveillance. Originally planned to be based in Iqaluit but it’s currently unclear now if that is still the case In other words it's not military. And it looks like it was ordered long before the coast guard became part of the military But despite the fact that the money was spent before the coast guard became military and it was ordered before the coast guard became military and will be performing non-military functions, you will insist it's new military spending that has never been there before Sigh. This is why we can't have nice things. 1 Quote "That which doesn't kill me... Had better start running."
BeaverFever Posted April 9 Author Report Posted April 9 8 hours ago, CdnFox said: In other words it's not military. And it looks like it was ordered long before the coast guard became part of the military But despite the fact that the money was spent before the coast guard became military and it was ordered before the coast guard became military and will be performing non-military functions, you will insist it's new military spending that has never been there before Sigh. This is why we can't have nice things. That’s 2 way you once again show your ignorance 1) It is defence, not military. Defence has civilian ie non-military components. The NATO 2% is for DEFENCE spending including civilian elements. Coast Guard, cybersecurity, intelligence all are civilian examples of legitimate defence expenditures. Nobody except your clueless deranged brain has attempted to claim that money spent in past years is included in current fiscal year figures, period. Money spent in the current fiscal year and going forward like operations and maintenance is legitimate defence expenditure in full compliance with the letter and spirit of NATO’s guidelines. 1 Quote
CdnFox Posted April 9 Report Posted April 9 1 hour ago, BeaverFever said: That’s 2 way you once again show your ignorance Every time you say that I turn out to be right But I don't mind making fun of you again, let's take a look Quote 1) It is defence, not military. Defence has civilian ie non-military components. The NATO 2% is for DEFENCE spending including civilian elements. Coast Guard, cybersecurity, intelligence all are civilian examples of legitimate defence expenditures. So in other words when I said it was non-military I was correct. So in this case I showed my ignorance by... being absolutely right. Uh huh well that was predictable. If you take a broader look at things sure, coast guard is "defense" in the sense that it protects people. So we should count the fire departments and police too right? That WOULD help our nato spending but... it's not new military spending is it. Quote Nobody except your clueless deranged brain has attempted to claim that money spent in past years is included in current fiscal year figures, period. Money spent in the current fiscal year and going forward like operations and maintenance is legitimate defence expenditure in full compliance with the letter and spirit of NATO’s guidelines. Could you point to where i said they were claiming past fiscal years? Nope? So again you're making something fake and arguing against it. They ARE however including amounts that were announced and budgeted before these programs became part of the military. So to claim now that they're "Military" spending would be stupid. So in THIS case i showed my ignorance by.... you making something up that i never said and arguing against it. LOL gotcha Well don't you look like a twat now. So I was correct and it's not new military spending, and I was correct that program spending that was announced originally as part of a different program which is now being included in the military spending is not new military spending. 1 Quote "That which doesn't kill me... Had better start running."
BeaverFever Posted April 9 Author Report Posted April 9 1 hour ago, CdnFox said: Every time you say that I turn out to be right But I don't mind making fun of you again, let's take a look LMAO in your dreams! Like when you claimed power plants ran on “cans of gasoline” 1 hour ago, CdnFox said: So in other words when I said it was non-military I was correct. So in this case I showed my ignorance by... being absolutely right. Uh huh well that was predictable. If you take a broader look at things sure, coast guard is "defense" in the sense that it protects people. So we should count the fire departments and police too right? That WOULD help our nato spending but... it's not new military spending is it. Your ignorance is not knowing that whether it is military or civilian it’s still part of defence as per NATO. This isn’t a loophole this is explicitly stated. Fire and police aren’t federal responsibilities, even the RCMP isn’t under DND tell me you at least understand that much. 1 hour ago, CdnFox said: They ARE however including amounts that were announced and budgeted before these programs became part of the military. So to claim now that they're "Military" spending would be stupid. So in THIS case i showed my ignorance by.... you making something up that i never said and arguing against it. LOL gotcha But you’re playing games now saying it doesn’t matter when the money was actually spent or budgeted only when it was announced. And yet when carney announces new spending you said it doesn’t count because it’s just empty promises for future spending that he won’t keep Let me educate you:. If Trudeau had announced a contract that cost a billion a year for the next 30 years it doesn’t get budgeted as a one-time 30 billion expense the year it was announced. Only the amount that is spent each year is counted for that particular year. The annual maintenance of our fighter planes goes on Carney’s budget not Pierre Trudeau’s budget because he was PM when the planes were bought. Get it? 1 hour ago, CdnFox said: Well don't you look like a twat now. So I was correct and it's not new military spending, and I was correct that program spending that was announced originally as part of a different program which is now being included in the military spending is not new military spending. No you’re still the clueless twat unaware that civilian defence expenditures count and making up claims about spending “announced” in previous years. And NATO doesn’t care if it’s “new” spending or not (even though there has been a ton of new spending on everything from military housing to base infrastructure that you continue to deny) 1 Quote
CdnFox Posted April 10 Report Posted April 10 6 hours ago, BeaverFever said: LMAO in your dreams! Like when you claimed power plants ran on “cans of gasoline” well i didn't quite say that but power plants DO in fact run on oil and gas, and they are stored in tanks That was the conversation where i pointed out it was easier to store petro chemicals than electricity and solar power woudn't be able to replace conventional power till we had a way to store it that was as cheap and effective as we store petro chemcials which is true, and you cried like a baby when i proved it at the time. I have no doubt that you spent all night that night re writing it in your head till it seemed like you won ROFLMAO!! But it's still hilarious to see Quote Your ignorance is not knowing that whether it is military or civilian it’s still part of defence as per NATO. This isn’t a loophole this is explicitly stated. Sorry kiddo from the very get go i've specifically said its "Not new military spending". Go back and look, i said it like 100 times. And you lost that argument so you're trying to pretend we were discussing something else. Quote Fire and police aren’t federal responsibilities, RCMP is. Quote even the RCMP isn’t under DND tell me you at least understand that much. Neither was the coast guard till like 5 minutes ago And if they put it under "defense' then it won't be new military spending. Quote But you’re playing games now saying it doesn’t matter when the money was actually spent or budgeted only when it was announced. That is not what i said. Go back and re read it. Once again you have to lie to try to salvage your failed argument. Quote Let me educate you: BWAAAAAHAHAHAHAHAHAAHAHA!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Quote . If Trudeau had announced a contract that cost a billion a year for the next 30 years it doesn’t get budgeted as a one-time 30 billion expense the year it was announced. Only the amount that is spent each year is counted for that particular year. IF it was already announced and the contract signed then it woudlnt' be new 'military' spending. It would just be spending previously committed to that is being relabeled. If it wasn't a contract then maybe you'd have a point. but if they signed a contract and now they're going to reallocate that money to the military budget? Sorry, not new spending. Quote The annual maintenance of our fighter planes goes on Carney’s budget not Pierre Trudeau’s budget because he was PM when the planes were bought. Get it? So why doesn't it go on the health care spending? DOn't know? Can't figure it out? Because it wasn't health care. And if you decide to CALL it health care now, it wouldn't be new healthcare spending, it would be military spending that was renamed. Get it? Quote No you’re still the clueless twat unaware that civilian defence expenditures count Then why didn't they count before? Why have we never applied the coast guard to military defense spending? If it's always counted and nothing changed then why not? Simple answer is you're wrong and a liar. It wasn't defense spending. We decided to rename it as defense spending but it wasn't. Which is fine. But - that means it's not new military spending. Very very simple. 1 1 Quote "That which doesn't kill me... Had better start running."
User Posted April 10 Report Posted April 10 7 hours ago, BeaverFever said: LMAO in your dreams! Like when you claimed power plants ran on “cans of gasoline” Once again, this is the problem with you. You ran away from that thread like you do almost every thread you are in. You say something stupid, you get called out, you turn to lies to avoid admitting you were wrong, you run away... then you come back and push the same stupid crap again. Just like you did here in this thread with trees. 1 1 Quote
CdnFox Posted April 10 Report Posted April 10 40 minutes ago, User said: Once again, this is the problem with you. You ran away from that thread like you do almost every thread you are in. You say something stupid, you get called out, you turn to lies to avoid admitting you were wrong, you run away... then you come back and push the same stupid crap again. Just like you did here in this thread with trees. Chronic problem. This is why you see threads about how the left these days are cultists You, as a right-wing person, can believe a thing and I can disagree with that thing and we can have a nice strong fun passionate discussion about it and have on a number of occasions and at the end of the day shake hands and move on. Both of us have even conceded points, noting that a thing the other believed was correct even though perhaps they didn't agree with the overall argument the other was making and emotionally we're not shattered. The left on the other hand simply denies facts and yells and puts their fingers in their ears and buries their head and hums and then comes back and repeats the same lies but now they've rewritten the conversation in their head to try and convince themselves they somehow won Like Chrissy is doing with you right now on the other thread and she was doing with me for quite a while as well And here we see it again. There was a time when I was growing up and I would sit down with some very intelligent people on the left and have absolutely great and incredible conversations that were frequently passionate and even heated but at the end of which we could conceive each other's points agree to disagree on the opinion parts shake hands and eat dinner together Nowadays the left one overturn the table the moment they heard you disagreed, scream like banshees, and demand that someone come and punch you because you are a Nazi for disagreeing. 2 1 Quote "That which doesn't kill me... Had better start running."
Army Guy Posted May 18 Report Posted May 18 Leopard tanks hit the news.... With all this new Fake spending being attributed to the military why is it we can not replace our main Battle tanks until 2035...it should be noted that most of our fleet are also older than 40 years today.....And why this is not a priority for the Army is mind boggling...The current plan is to place all the Main Battle tanks in Edmonton, leaving the armored school, 2 CMBG, 5 CMBG without "any" tanks at all....but it gets worse 1/2 those tanks in Edmonton are training tanks....we have 20 LeaoIIA4M and 20 LeoIIA6M...Canada needs to get it's sh!t in a pile, how complicated can one purchase be.... Quote We, the willing, led by the unknowing, are doing the impossible for the ungrateful. We have now done so much for so long with so little, we are now capable of doing anything with nothing.
Army Guy Posted May 18 Report Posted May 18 US drops a key military board and sites a lack of Canadian investment as a key reason....I provided views from both sides of the border...note the differences... 2 % of GDP is not the new standard that was the old standard....Thanks Canada for keeping up.........the new standards in 3.5 % on military expenditures and 1.5 % on military infra structure... https://thehill.com/policy/defense/5883148-canada-defense-cooperation-trump-carney-tensions/ https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/trump-canada-us-joint-defence-board-9.7203211 Quote We, the willing, led by the unknowing, are doing the impossible for the ungrateful. We have now done so much for so long with so little, we are now capable of doing anything with nothing.
Zeitgeist Posted May 19 Report Posted May 19 (edited) 3 hours ago, Army Guy said: US drops a key military board and sites a lack of Canadian investment as a key reason....I provided views from both sides of the border...note the differences... 2 % of GDP is not the new standard that was the old standard....Thanks Canada for keeping up.........the new standards in 3.5 % on military expenditures and 1.5 % on military infra structure... https://thehill.com/policy/defense/5883148-canada-defense-cooperation-trump-carney-tensions/ https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/trump-canada-us-joint-defence-board-9.7203211 It should be 2%. The US overspends on its military. Canada is spending more on its military than it has in 5 decades at least. It’s already past spending 2%. Just because Trump keeps moving the goalposts doesn’t mean we should take the bait. We should all have learned by now that it doesn’t matter what Canada does on trade, military spending, or anything else, the name of the game right now in Washington is squeezing other countries, including allies. While there will areas where we still need to make improvements, the amounts we’re spending on aircraft and ships is significant, especially since so much damage seems to be done by drones now on the cheap. If Canada isn’t going to be part of the conversation with the Pentagon, the Trump administration can’t complain about countries’ hesitation to support American moves in Iran or anywhere else. Besides, as Trump says, the US can do everything on its own and doesn’t need the help of smaller powers. Edited May 19 by Zeitgeist 1 Quote
Legato Posted May 19 Report Posted May 19 3 hours ago, Army Guy said: US drops a key military board and sites a lack of Canadian investment as a key reason....I provided views from both sides of the border...note the differences... Because of the Carney’s Davos speech — a four-month-old address the Canadian prime minister’s admirers had called Churchillian, and that Washington now treats as a case study in the gap between rhetoric and reality. Quote
herbie Posted May 19 Report Posted May 19 The largest military investment aince WW2 isn't good enough for Donnie Diapersnipoer. Well wah wah take your ball and go home. 1 Quote
TreeBeard Posted May 19 Report Posted May 19 4 hours ago, Army Guy said: US drops a key military board and sites a lack of Canadian investment as a key reason....I provided views from both sides of the border...note the differences... 2 % of GDP is not the new standard that was the old standard....Thanks Canada for keeping up.........the new standards in 3.5 % on military expenditures and 1.5 % on military infra structure... https://thehill.com/policy/defense/5883148-canada-defense-cooperation-trump-carney-tensions/ https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/trump-canada-us-joint-defence-board-9.7203211 You love Trump more than you love Canada. We get it. 2 Quote
Army Guy Posted May 19 Report Posted May 19 33 minutes ago, Zeitgeist said: It should be 2%. The US overspends on its military. Canada is spending more on its military than it has in 5 decades at least. It’s already past spending 2%. Just because Trump keeps moving the goalposts doesn’t mean we should take the bait. We should all have learned by now that it doesn’t matter what Canada does on trade, military spending, or anything else, the name of the game right now in Washington is squeezing other countries, including allies. While there will areas where we still need to make improvements, the amounts we’re spending on aircraft and ships is significant, especially since so much damage seems to be done by drones now on the cheap. If Canada isn’t going to be part of the conversation with the Pentagon, the Trump administration can’t complain about countries’ hesitation to support American moves in Iran or anywhere else. Besides, as Trump says, the US can do everything on its own and doesn’t need the help of smaller powers. First off 2 % is not the unit of measure any more.....that's yesterdays numbers..... Canada has to do some creative accounting to make even that number....Every major piece of equipment our military has is over 40 Years old....not battle worthy...And now almost everything needs to be replace all at once....That is the cost of being cheap... The goal post had to be moved as NATO was not equipped to face any major threat...The new numbers are to bring NATO military forces in line with the threats they face...Those numbers are not forever numbers...This is not about trump, its about NATO not investing in its military forces as it should be, no sense in having an alliance if it can't defend anything... We have more areas that need improvement than we have capabilities that are state of the art...Well you have had 40 plus years to save our pennies, which we did not....so ya sh!t is expensive...what would you be willing to pay for your freedom, or to have a military members come home to their families safe and sound....Drones are a phase in combat, Tech grows so fast and like any weapon system counter measures will be invented to make drones just a regular weapon system. Why should Canada be part of the conversation if it is not paying it's fair share for it's defense... for years the US government has asked nicely for us to step up, and Canada has given them the cold shoulder or the finger....Now the US has a president that is very vocal, we has a nation are not used to someone holding our feet to the fire....and forcing the issue....we have no one to blame but ourselves... Yes US started the conflict with Iran, lets not pretend Iran is innocent in all of this, and did not deserve to be kicked in the face....and while all those nations refuse to open up the strait they should not complain about the cost of fuel that they are more than willing to pay, instead of helping lower the cost by enforcing international law on Iran by blackmailing the world by holding the strait hostage......The world had choices and we fell into the complaining crowd... Quote We, the willing, led by the unknowing, are doing the impossible for the ungrateful. We have now done so much for so long with so little, we are now capable of doing anything with nothing.
Army Guy Posted May 19 Report Posted May 19 53 minutes ago, Legato said: Because of the Carney’s Davos speech — a four-month-old address the Canadian prime minister’s admirers had called Churchillian, and that Washington now treats as a case study in the gap between rhetoric and reality. Have you listened to that speech...did you think there would be no consequences, this is not week one of trumps rule, this is the second term....we should know by now this was not going to go well....And i think this is just on straw, there are lots of things carney has said that has not gone well....and lets face it, all that has happened is lots of promises...nothing more... 16 minutes ago, herbie said: The largest military investment aince WW2 isn't good enough for Donnie Diapersnipoer. Well wah wah take your ball and go home. Where is the investments, have we signed any contracts yet....with exception of ships....no all we have right now is words, and promises.... Quote We, the willing, led by the unknowing, are doing the impossible for the ungrateful. We have now done so much for so long with so little, we are now capable of doing anything with nothing.
CdnFox Posted May 19 Report Posted May 19 7 minutes ago, Army Guy said: First off 2 % is not the unit of measure any more.....that's yesterdays numbers..... Canada has to do some creative accounting to make even that number....Every major piece of equipment our military has is over 40 Years old....not battle worthy...And now almost everything needs to be replace all at once....That is the cost of being cheap... I Get what you're saying and don't disagree but the whole conversation is meaningless unless we reach a real world agreement on what is or isn't "military spending". I mean i'm sure we can agree rolling the truduea era tree planting expenditure into our 'military spending' did absolutely nothing to replace any old equipment or make our guys more ready for a conflict. And while the coast guard thing might make sense again, it did nothing whatsoever to actually increase actual "Military spending" in a way most people would define it: buying guns and bullets so to speak IF the vast majority is going to pave roads, plant trees, upgrade civilian infrastructure and such as has been the case then we might well be as bad off or WORSE than we were in a few years. And i did warn you about this, you're not getting what you think you're getting with '5 percent increased military spending" Quote "That which doesn't kill me... Had better start running."
Army Guy Posted May 19 Report Posted May 19 9 minutes ago, TreeBeard said: You love Trump more than you love Canada. We get it. Why do you hate our military members so much, why is it so important to you that we do not give them the best equipment money can buy so they can come home to their families, after putting their lives on the line for this nation.. Why is it your so weak that you can't take criticism...instead you take it as a personal attack....not even embarrassed about the why this is happening, but rather the US had the gull to call us out on it... Quote We, the willing, led by the unknowing, are doing the impossible for the ungrateful. We have now done so much for so long with so little, we are now capable of doing anything with nothing.
Army Guy Posted May 19 Report Posted May 19 3 minutes ago, CdnFox said: I Get what you're saying and don't disagree but the whole conversation is meaningless unless we reach a real world agreement on what is or isn't "military spending". I mean i'm sure we can agree rolling the truduea era tree planting expenditure into our 'military spending' did absolutely nothing to replace any old equipment or make our guys more ready for a conflict. And while the coast guard thing might make sense again, it did nothing whatsoever to actually increase actual "Military spending" in a way most people would define it: buying guns and bullets so to speak IF the vast majority is going to pave roads, plant trees, upgrade civilian infrastructure and such as has been the case then we might well be as bad off or WORSE than we were in a few years. And i did warn you about this, you're not getting what you think you're getting with '5 percent increased military spending" I'm pretty sure the whole issue is spelled out in the NATO charter....3.5 spent on military, equipment and operating costs, 1.5 % on military infra structure...which could be anything that could be used for the military like railroads, major road networks, dual purpose things like water treatment plants, sewage plants up north.... Some of the most wanted things are so simple to solve...for instance 2 RCR has made one of it's 3 infantry companies dismounted ,meaning they have no drive to get to battle........because there is not enough LAV 6 to make them mechanized...which means they either go to battle by truck or school bus...same as tanks, we have 3 armored Regts only one has tanks....the rest are driving around in LAV 6 meant for the infantry...LAV 6 are made in Ontario....and the Army announced no tanks before 2035, which could be built right here in Canada well before then... Military is bleeding people because they are getting tired of waiting for something to happen, new equipment, new anything....and a lot of them are the experienced soldiers... I get it you did warn me, but people lives are on the line here...and instead politicians are playing politics with those lives...and it seems Canadians are OK with that.... Quote We, the willing, led by the unknowing, are doing the impossible for the ungrateful. We have now done so much for so long with so little, we are now capable of doing anything with nothing.
Zeitgeist Posted May 19 Report Posted May 19 26 minutes ago, Army Guy said: Yes US started the conflict with Iran, lets not pretend Iran is innocent in all of this, and did not deserve to be kicked in the face....and while all those nations refuse to open up the strait they should not complain about the cost of fuel that they are more than willing to pay, instead of helping lower the cost by enforcing international law on Iran by blackmailing the world by holding the strait hostage......The world had choices and we fell into the complaining crowd... Are you saying that the US’s attack on Iran was sensible? 1 Quote
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.