Army Guy Posted October 22, 2025 Report Posted October 22, 2025 On 10/21/2025 at 12:07 AM, herbie said: I think the US government has more lawyers on staff than some military magazine with a few reporters, who's specialty is inter national law, and the laws of armed conflict.....Now i do subscribe to scotty but he does not always get it right....I'm also sure that Canada has a sh1t ton of lawyers that do the same and if it is not on the up and up then they would brief the chain of command....But as of today Canada still participates in anti drug patrols... 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 October 22, 2025 Report Posted October 22, 2025 17 hours ago, BeaverFever said: Security and sovereignty are different than war fighting. Canada could never win a war against Russia singlehandedly so it would be pointless to make that the goal of our arctic strategy. But we are not alone against Russia we are part of a military alliance and Russia is not going to attack and kill NATO forces on their own soil. So they are not going to attack a Canadian AOPS patrolling the arctic even if they have the capability to do so easily. Security and sovereignty is about detecting activity and having a deterrent presence. If we don’t have any assets there at all then the Russians are free to go wherever they want and then the onus is on us to dislodge them by force, which USA might not back us on. The Russians would not go as far as to shoot their way past even a lightly armed Canadian security force, they could however waltz in on unguarded territory and then just say “we’re here now, what are you going to do about it?” The invasion would be over instantly. The OCCUPATION would be impossible. Canada is like 23 times the size of Iraq and there’s no way the US military could occupy it entirely OR secure the world’s longest binational border which means US military would have to secure the entire North American continent from Alaska to Florida. The resistance won’t need rifles as much in the age of the deadly homemade drone and IED but there are plenty of firearms to be obtained in USA. And that’s assuming that foreign powers aren’t smuggling aid to us. As for cyberattacks and otherwise destroying Canada, Canada has its own cybersecurity and Canadians have their own computer geeks able to hack back. Cyber is actually the great equalizer because capabilities are much more equal between countries. Furthermore USA would want to keep Canada’s economy intact not destroy it. It wouldn’t help them to share the world’s longest border with a ruined failed state. Their goal for annexing Canada would be to add a shiny jewel to their crown not to smash the jewel into shit and devalue the crown they already have I think you make a lot of trumps talking points for him....it is one thing to be able to patrol and check upon our security, which we could do with dozens of dog sleds and a drone........but we as a nation must have the equipment to defend as well....One must be able to deter, and have the will to deter if one wants to secure our sovereignty....if the enemy knows you are not wiling to defend they will just take it... Another point is NATO is an organization that does expect each of its partners to have not only the equipment but will to engage in direct actions against an enemy, Meaning Canada must have the means to defend itself not just have the ability to patrol and make sure nobody is on our nations territory...NATO is pleading with Canada to strengthen our northern defenses , so it is not an easy door to kick in... During the cold war shots have been fired, there are historical reports of many engagements on both sides...one recent example is in Syria as Russian Wagner group engaging US spec ops forces, with US forces wiping them out....not to mention of Russian and Chinese ramming other naval ves... Occupation, i think you guys are trying to relive the wolverines movie....People are not like that....Canadians are not like that, maybe one out of ten thousand would be willing to fight...with what exactly captured small arms.. against an army that has armored forces, heliborne , airborne a huge air force....surveillance gear that could find one man in a hay stack from 30,000 feet....and Special ops forces that could track and kill the best there is....Sounds great on paper, get a couple of two fours out to get the boys lubed up and you'll get all kinds of volunteers, they will beating their chests yelling and screaming bring them on........but once the bullets start flying i bet most go home in the first engagement.... PBO office has already released her report on cyber , lets say it is an eye opener....and Canada is very open to attack. 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 October 23, 2025 Author Report Posted October 23, 2025 4 hours ago, Army Guy said: I think you make a lot of trumps talking points for him....it is one thing to be able to patrol and check upon our security, which we could do with dozens of dog sleds and a drone........but we as a nation must have the equipment to defend as well....One must be able to deter, and have the will to deter if one wants to secure our sovereignty....if the enemy knows you are not wiling to defend they will just take it... Another point is NATO is an organization that does expect each of its partners to have not only the equipment but will to engage in direct actions against an enemy, Meaning Canada must have the means to defend itself not just have the ability to patrol and make sure nobody is on our nations territory...NATO is pleading with Canada to strengthen our northern defenses , so it is not an easy door to kick in... During the cold war shots have been fired, there are historical reports of many engagements on both sides...one recent example is in Syria as Russian Wagner group engaging US spec ops forces, with US forces wiping them out....not to mention of Russian and Chinese ramming other naval ves... Occupation, i think you guys are trying to relive the wolverines movie....People are not like that....Canadians are not like that, maybe one out of ten thousand would be willing to fight...with what exactly captured small arms.. against an army that has armored forces, heliborne , airborne a huge air force....surveillance gear that could find one man in a hay stack from 30,000 feet....and Special ops forces that could track and kill the best there is....Sounds great on paper, get a couple of two fours out to get the boys lubed up and you'll get all kinds of volunteers, they will beating their chests yelling and screaming bring them on........but once the bullets start flying i bet most go home in the first engagement.... PBO office has already released her report on cyber , lets say it is an eye opener....and Canada is very open to attack. Nobody expects Canada to be able to defeat Russia singlehandedly, that’s not realistic. Dogsleds and drones can be captured and defeated bloodlessly. All Canada needs beyond security and surveillance is a tripwire force of sufficient strength that it can only be defeated by being killed in an unmistakable act of war, not just in a skirmish or “incident” but a planned and deliberate attack. As for occupation, look how USA struggled in Afghanistan and Iraq and at least there they had “war on terror” excuse and the fact that the conflict was far from US shores to keep the American public on their side. Canada is something like 26x the size of Iraq, the US military doesn’t have the force size to control that much territory and the border and they are not going to surrender the world to Russia and China by withdrawing forces from every theatre in the world to occupy Canada. And while some right wing Americans will undoubtedly believe whatever lie the White House tells them I don’t think many Americans would support invading Canada or having insurgents in their communities. America has enough firearms in circulation that plenty will be available on the black market to meet the demand. But as I said we live in the age of the drone and the IED. Quote
Army Guy Posted October 23, 2025 Report Posted October 23, 2025 1 hour ago, BeaverFever said: Nobody expects Canada to be able to defeat Russia singlehandedly, that’s not realistic. Dogsleds and drones can be captured and defeated bloodlessly. All Canada needs beyond security and surveillance is a tripwire force of sufficient strength that it can only be defeated by being killed in an unmistakable act of war, not just in a skirmish or “incident” but a planned and deliberate attack. As for occupation, look how USA struggled in Afghanistan and Iraq and at least there they had “war on terror” excuse and the fact that the conflict was far from US shores to keep the American public on their side. Canada is something like 26x the size of Iraq, the US military doesn’t have the force size to control that much territory and the border and they are not going to surrender the world to Russia and China by withdrawing forces from every theatre in the world to occupy Canada. And while some right wing Americans will undoubtedly believe whatever lie the White House tells them I don’t think many Americans would support invading Canada or having insurgents in their communities. America has enough firearms in circulation that plenty will be available on the black market to meet the demand. But as I said we live in the age of the drone and the IED. Nobody is expecting Canada to act alone....How ever my point is if you only delegate the reserve force to protect the north and only do that once or twice a year, the message i would receive is your really not that serious about your sovereignty...Having Forward operating bases with fighter support, and company size ground forces with the proper gear... would send a message your at least taking it seriously and to take out such a force would defiantly require some thought and effort..."that's a deterrent" having some artic Rangers on skidoos and the reserves twice a year ...is not......Right now Canada pays our artic security lip service...And any small skirmish of ground or air or naval forces would be an act of war.. Then what...what is the nest step, is it wait, until NATO arrives, or engage with larger forces....I will bet as long as the Military is a thing, it will send troops until there is no troops to send.....and if NATO shows up then maybe This has been table topped many times on both sides of the border, none of those exercises come out in Canada's favor...And if Canadians want a crack at playing Rambo, by all means, bring your bolt action rifle with a pocket full of ammo, to a fight where the average soldier is carrying 6 to 10, 30 round mags, and assorted other things grenades, rockets, 40 mm auto launchers grenades, 30 mm auto cannons on LAVS....not counting helos , jets and ships......that scenario does not even play well with any amount of support for someone that has hunting experience...... with all the US assets available to them be it from surveillance at every attitude, to drones , to well armored forces on the ground the average civilian Rambo would be measured in mere seconds...once spotted.... even Canadian military could destroy these forces before they become a major problem and we are missing half the kit.......for future rambos it would be nothing more than escape and evasion....and not many escape or evade...and the US has since come up with sensors that can spot spot a humming bird taking a sh!t at 30,000 feet, that's from land, air and sea...those people that decided to take this route, would have to be constantly moving in deep terrain like mountains...live off the land, not many people can do that...certainly not any Canadian living in our cities... Look im not trying and talk Canadians into doing what ever they want....but they should be prepared to lose a lot of friends...in the process...finding out that war truly does suck is all that road leads to... there is no glory, romance...it's living like an animal, wiping your ass with your t shit until your down to just pants and a shirt.......killing your own food, just finding drinkable water is a huge chore...How many people do you know how to make home made explosives...or how to construct an IED with them....Even trained military personal lack all the skills required to live in the bush for long periods of time... And to top all of that off, you'll be labeled a terrorist group...as you don't were uniforms, don't have a formal chain of command don't fall under the Geneva convention... basically your rights are reduced to zero....you'll be tried for war crimes under a military court....and subjected to US military law....good luck....of course that's only if they capture you...not many drone terrorist are kept they have no value....your most likely killed in some raid or strike.. My advice would be to stay home with your family...because once the occupation starts it will become survival of the fittest....food rationing, forget about having property rights, or ownership of most items that will be restricted...feeding you kids will be your only thing you will have time for... Bin Ladin was a professional terrorist and he hide for years....he had thousands of people supporting him, and he was shot along with his wife in front of his children....then dumped into the ocean think about that for a minute...before you grab that hunting rifle and that one or two box's of ammo...this is how it ends for most ....But hey your wife could have that put on your grave stone "a true Patriot"...if she can afford 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.
BeaverFever Posted November 6, 2025 Author Report Posted November 6, 2025 Canadian Military leaders warn of future conflict, push for massive expansion Published Oct 31, 2025 • Last updated 5 days ago • 3 minute read The Canadian Armed Forces is developing a new Defence Mobilization Plan that could see its reserve strength grow from about 28,000 members to as many as 400,000, according to an internal directive approved earlier this year by senior military and government officials. The directive, signed on May 30 by Chief of the Defence Staff Gen. Jennie Carignan and Deputy Defence Minister Stefanie Beck, authorizes the creation of a special planning group, known as a “tiger team,” to study how the military could manage such an expansion. The group began its work on June 4 at National Defence Headquarters in Ottawa. The plan is intended to prepare Canada for a wide range of potential crises, from domestic natural disasters to high-intensity international conflicts. The document calls for what it describes as a “Whole of Society” approach, meaning the initiative would involve cooperation from multiple levels of government, the private sector, and the Canadian public. The directive states that the goal is to ensure the country can respond quickly and effectively to emergencies or threats by establishing the conditions needed to expand the Canadian Armed Forces and move personnel where required. The plan sets ambitious targets. It proposes increasing the primary reserve force from about 23,500 members to 100,000 and the supplementary and other reserves from about 4,300 to 300,000. That would bring the total to roughly 400,000 personnel available for mobilization. Such a large buildup would require new federal legislation, increased funding, and major logistical and training support. The Department of National Defence declined to comment on the initiative when asked by Postmedia. The directive notes that the Department of National Defence will not be able to achieve the goal on its own and that the plan will require collaboration across government departments, including the Privy Council Office and other agencies. The military will also consult with international partners, including Finland, which operates a conscription-based system that maintains one of the world’s most extensive reserve forces. In Finland, military service is mandatory for men between the ages of 18 and 60, and women may volunteer. Canada’s reserve structure, by contrast, is entirely voluntary. Recruiting and retaining enough personnel has been a consistent challenge for the Canadian Forces, and a recent audit found that the average recruitment process takes twice as long as the target of 100 to 150 days, largely due to delays in security screening. The audit also identified a shortage of training capacity, which raises questions about how a rapid expansion of the reserves could be achieved under the current system. The mobilization plan comes at a time when military leaders have been warning about the shifting global security environment. In recent months, Canadian officers have pointed to increasing geopolitical competition between major powers and the need for Western nations to rebuild their defence capacity. In June 2025, Brig.-Gen. Brendan Cook, the Royal Canadian Air Force’s director general of air and space force development, said Canada must rearm in anticipation of a potential conflict involving China or Russia, possibly as early as 2028 to 2030. The directive from Carignan and Beck does not specify what events might trigger activation of the mobilization plan, but it describes the need for a more resilient national security posture. The document says that in order for Canada to maintain autonomy and readiness in a time of rising global tension, a coordinated defence plan involving both military and civilian partners must be established. Part of the tiger team’s work will include assessing what investments would be required to support the reserves and sustain a larger force. It will also examine infrastructure, training, and recruitment systems to determine what improvements are needed for rapid mobilization. The plan’s architects acknowledge that expanding to 400,000 personnel would depend on securing broad public participation and political backing. While the Defence Mobilization Plan is still in development, it represents the most far-reaching proposal for Canadian military growth since the Second World War. It reflects an acknowledgment within the Department of National Defence that the existing force structure may be insufficient for future crises. Canada’s military currently includes about 60,000 full-time members and 28,000 reservists, below its official target strength. Officials have said the mobilization effort would be designed not only to expand numbers but also to build a framework that could be activated quickly in the event of a major conflict or national emergency. For now, the “tiger team” is laying the groundwork for how such a plan could be implemented, including potential legal changes, funding models, and partnerships with other government agencies. The directive makes clear that success will depend on coordination beyond the military and engagement with Canadians themselves. https://winnipegsun.com/news/canadian-military-leaders-warn-of-future-conflict-push-for-massive-expansion Quote
Army Guy Posted November 6, 2025 Report Posted November 6, 2025 1 hour ago, BeaverFever said: Canadian Military leaders warn of future conflict, push for massive expansion Published Oct 31, 2025 • Last updated 5 days ago • 3 minute read The Canadian Armed Forces is developing a new Defence Mobilization Plan that could see its reserve strength grow from about 28,000 members to as many as 400,000, according to an internal directive approved earlier this year by senior military and government officials. The directive, signed on May 30 by Chief of the Defence Staff Gen. Jennie Carignan and Deputy Defence Minister Stefanie Beck, authorizes the creation of a special planning group, known as a “tiger team,” to study how the military could manage such an expansion. The group began its work on June 4 at National Defence Headquarters in Ottawa. The plan is intended to prepare Canada for a wide range of potential crises, from domestic natural disasters to high-intensity international conflicts. The document calls for what it describes as a “Whole of Society” approach, meaning the initiative would involve cooperation from multiple levels of government, the private sector, and the Canadian public. The directive states that the goal is to ensure the country can respond quickly and effectively to emergencies or threats by establishing the conditions needed to expand the Canadian Armed Forces and move personnel where required. The plan sets ambitious targets. It proposes increasing the primary reserve force from about 23,500 members to 100,000 and the supplementary and other reserves from about 4,300 to 300,000. That would bring the total to roughly 400,000 personnel available for mobilization. Such a large buildup would require new federal legislation, increased funding, and major logistical and training support. The Department of National Defence declined to comment on the initiative when asked by Postmedia. The directive notes that the Department of National Defence will not be able to achieve the goal on its own and that the plan will require collaboration across government departments, including the Privy Council Office and other agencies. The military will also consult with international partners, including Finland, which operates a conscription-based system that maintains one of the world’s most extensive reserve forces. In Finland, military service is mandatory for men between the ages of 18 and 60, and women may volunteer. Canada’s reserve structure, by contrast, is entirely voluntary. Recruiting and retaining enough personnel has been a consistent challenge for the Canadian Forces, and a recent audit found that the average recruitment process takes twice as long as the target of 100 to 150 days, largely due to delays in security screening. The audit also identified a shortage of training capacity, which raises questions about how a rapid expansion of the reserves could be achieved under the current system. The mobilization plan comes at a time when military leaders have been warning about the shifting global security environment. In recent months, Canadian officers have pointed to increasing geopolitical competition between major powers and the need for Western nations to rebuild their defence capacity. In June 2025, Brig.-Gen. Brendan Cook, the Royal Canadian Air Force’s director general of air and space force development, said Canada must rearm in anticipation of a potential conflict involving China or Russia, possibly as early as 2028 to 2030. The directive from Carignan and Beck does not specify what events might trigger activation of the mobilization plan, but it describes the need for a more resilient national security posture. The document says that in order for Canada to maintain autonomy and readiness in a time of rising global tension, a coordinated defence plan involving both military and civilian partners must be established. Part of the tiger team’s work will include assessing what investments would be required to support the reserves and sustain a larger force. It will also examine infrastructure, training, and recruitment systems to determine what improvements are needed for rapid mobilization. The plan’s architects acknowledge that expanding to 400,000 personnel would depend on securing broad public participation and political backing. While the Defence Mobilization Plan is still in development, it represents the most far-reaching proposal for Canadian military growth since the Second World War. It reflects an acknowledgment within the Department of National Defence that the existing force structure may be insufficient for future crises. Canada’s military currently includes about 60,000 full-time members and 28,000 reservists, below its official target strength. Officials have said the mobilization effort would be designed not only to expand numbers but also to build a framework that could be activated quickly in the event of a major conflict or national emergency. For now, the “tiger team” is laying the groundwork for how such a plan could be implemented, including potential legal changes, funding models, and partnerships with other government agencies. The directive makes clear that success will depend on coordination beyond the military and engagement with Canadians themselves. https://winnipegsun.com/news/canadian-military-leaders-warn-of-future-conflict-push-for-massive-expansion I see the good idea fairy's have come out in full force...It takes years of training and experience just to build a good JR NCO....My question is who is going to train these 400,000 people....If and when a major conflict/ national emergency happens who is going to respond and who if any is left going to train....This is not WWII were a soldier could get away with 11 weeks training then off to war, today even an infantry soldier has to train on the latest equipment.... This plan looks like it was taken from WWI achieves, when reserve soldiers out number regular (professional ) soldiers by 1000 to one... and most of those reserve soldiers learned their craft on the battle field...those that were not fast learners were buried in some far off grave site...And it did not get that much better in WWII. Lets not even talk about maintaining 400,000 soldiers...the recruitment alone would be out of this world, and what do we equip them with...your going to need more than 5 %.....of GDP....we are 28 bil it cost to maintain sort of 60,000 troops and 28, 000 reservist...and our equipment sucks, training dollars are almost non existent...a good portion of most of that is spent on wages and bonuses...that 28 bil is going to 64 bil this year, and really most of the procurement dollars have yet to be announced... Good on them for at least thinking about the Idea for the future....but we should be concentrating on the regular forces training and equipping The army use to train 8 months out of the year....and now is lucky to get 2 months....and incorporating entire reserve units in with each Regiment, with that Regt responsible for that entire reserve unit training , and those reserve units equipped in a mirror image to the regs... Same as the air force and Navy to act as national emergency responders plus act as a casualty replacement pool for reg units. 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.
eyeball Posted November 6, 2025 Report Posted November 6, 2025 My idea fairy wonders how much it would cost us to turn the Pickering Power Plant into the Mother of all dirty bombs, salted with tons of cobalt of course, you know me, and we simply tell the world to fùck off? Our allies would probably spend trillions ringing Canada with everything they have to keep anyone from even thinking about approaching us. There's been a bit of talk around here about how a little bit of crazy can be good for us so...Imagine a bully threatening to beat you up and you suddenly take your clothes off. $10 says he backs away slowly. Quote I said now watch what you say they'll be calling you a radical, a liberal, oh fanatical criminal
Army Guy Posted November 14, 2025 Report Posted November 14, 2025 This is perhaps the scariest idea every to come out of the puzzle palace, and if this was actually sanctioned by the CDS it is time to find a new one, the days of breaking glass callings is over...and the tiger cell that actually thought this up, well Walmart greeter is your next calling....I've heard of better ideas from Ptes in recruit school... This idea would not even work during war time let alone peace time.......And then for the government to actually heard it, and gave it any credence that's the scary part, these are the people we trust to rebuild our military....we might as well hand this entire project to a kindergarten class....even Herbies ideas make more sense than any of this.... I've worked with public servants shit i was one for a few years....would i entrust any of them to defend our nation.. Not on your life...This is where our nation is right now....stuck out in left field, high on mushrooms grasping at ideas, coming out of our so called military higher chain of command...........We are the same nation that won't even trust the people with a hunting rifle with a 5 round mag....because it is to scary...now lets train 300 k civil servants when we don't even have the money or resources to train our professional soldiers...Shit we can't even get civil services to work in an office 5 days a week....This country makes me laugh at times, and it shows you how sick it really is...There really is no coming back from this....Someone needs to take a huge broom to NDHQ and sweep all those crazies out into the streets....and lets not forget all the politicians that even allowed this shit to be heard let alone agree with it... Why not just bring in conscription, force our young people to join our military or medical service, police or fire dept....forest fire fighting service, anything except the other civil service... 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.
TreeBeard Posted November 14, 2025 Report Posted November 14, 2025 4 hours ago, Army Guy said: We are the same nation that won't even trust the people with a hunting rifle with a 5 round mag Why do you need more than a 5 round magazine? 1 Quote
Venandi Posted November 14, 2025 Report Posted November 14, 2025 (edited) 5 hours ago, Army Guy said: This is where our nation is right now....stuck out in left field, high on mushrooms grasping at ideas. When I heard about this my first thought was the gun grab. Imagine the logical gyrations a liberal voter would have to perform in order to think that proceeding with both of these things simultaneously is a jolly good idea. The thought of training civil servants to use guns whist simultaneously having the same people actively engaged in taking guns away from those who actually know how to use them is a uniquely Canadian idea. Even the Good Idea Fairy didn't think this one would pass muster. While our best Regular Force recruiting efforts are barely able to stay ahead of attrition, no one with a hand held calculator questions the logical absurdities here. Even more delicious is the fact that many of the people defending it also think getting submarines is a "silly" idea and simply shrug at the notion that we can't equip and train what we already have in a timely and efficient manner. I hope they go ahead and do it, I'm looking forward to watching it play out. Edited November 14, 2025 by Venandi 1 Quote
I am Groot Posted November 14, 2025 Report Posted November 14, 2025 On 10/20/2025 at 11:07 PM, herbie said: The Left is all about guilt-mongering now. Whatever happens anywhere in the world, somehow, WE are to blame. And then they'll whine about Poilievre being too negative! Quote "A civilization is not destroyed by wicked men; it is destroyed by weak men who cannot defend what is good.” — G. K. Chesterton
I am Groot Posted November 14, 2025 Report Posted November 14, 2025 5 hours ago, TreeBeard said: Why do you need more than a 5 round magazine? What if there's more than five zombies!? Quote "A civilization is not destroyed by wicked men; it is destroyed by weak men who cannot defend what is good.” — G. K. Chesterton
Venandi Posted November 14, 2025 Report Posted November 14, 2025 (edited) 2 hours ago, I am Groot said: What if there's more than five zombies!? And what is special about the number 5? The mandated pins restricting magazine capacity are easily drilled out by anyone with a modicum of technical ability and it certainly doesn't appear that gang members in Toronto are adversely inclined to using over capacity magazines. Elevating a 5 round box magazine on a semiautomatic .22 to the status of an assault rifle would tend to eliminate any civil servants inclined to agree with the concept from the threshold of knowledge required to join the new reserve units if I were doing the intake interviews. The amount of training time required to dispel all of the logical absurdities here would take up most of the first week's training. Edited November 14, 2025 by Venandi Quote
I am Groot Posted November 14, 2025 Report Posted November 14, 2025 34 minutes ago, Venandi said: And what is special about the number 5? I don't know. Why are they limited to 5? 34 minutes ago, Venandi said: The mandated pins restricting magazine capacity are easily drilled out by anyone with a modicum of technical ability I don't DO manual labour! Less pot for veterans! I wonder how many Canadians knew this was even a thing. Gov't to save $4 billion by sending less marijuana money to veterans | National Post Quote "A civilization is not destroyed by wicked men; it is destroyed by weak men who cannot defend what is good.” — G. K. Chesterton
BeaverFever Posted November 14, 2025 Author Report Posted November 14, 2025 13 hours ago, Army Guy said: This is perhaps the scariest idea every to come out of the puzzle palace, and if this was actually sanctioned by the CDS it is time to find a new one, the days of breaking glass callings is over...and the tiger cell that actually thought this up, well Walmart greeter is your next calling....I've heard of better ideas from Ptes in recruit school... This idea would not even work during war time let alone peace time.......And then for the government to actually heard it, and gave it any credence that's the scary part, these are the people we trust to rebuild our military....we might as well hand this entire project to a kindergarten class....even Herbies ideas make more sense than any of this.... I've worked with public servants shit i was one for a few years....would i entrust any of them to defend our nation.. Not on your life...This is where our nation is right now....stuck out in left field, high on mushrooms grasping at ideas, coming out of our so called military higher chain of command...........We are the same nation that won't even trust the people with a hunting rifle with a 5 round mag....because it is to scary...now lets train 300 k civil servants when we don't even have the money or resources to train our professional soldiers...Shit we can't even get civil services to work in an office 5 days a week....This country makes me laugh at times, and it shows you how sick it really is...There really is no coming back from this....Someone needs to take a huge broom to NDHQ and sweep all those crazies out into the streets....and lets not forget all the politicians that even allowed this shit to be heard let alone agree with it... Why not just bring in conscription, force our young people to join our military or medical service, police or fire dept....forest fire fighting service, anything except the other civil service... Well is there any military person you would trust back when they were still an untrained civilian with no military experience? The CDS has clarified that they aren’t proposing a policy of sending untrained civilian bureaucrats into war zones, or drafting public servants, they’re only suggesting that the government could theoretically consider encouraging or incentivizing public sector employees to join the reserves alongside their fellow Canadians.. I think the right wing media is so triggered by this and overreacting is due to their general contempt for public sector employees (other than cops and firefighters etc), whom they love to constantly demonize but if you think about it a lot of reservists already are public sector workers. Quote
BeaverFever Posted November 14, 2025 Author Report Posted November 14, 2025 8 hours ago, Venandi said: When I heard about this my first thought was the gun grab. Imagine the logical gyrations a liberal voter would have to perform in order to think that proceeding with both of these things simultaneously is a jolly good idea. The thought of training civil servants to use guns whist simultaneously having the same people actively engaged in taking guns away from those who actually know how to use them is a uniquely Canadian idea. Even the Good Idea Fairy didn't think this one would pass muster. While our best Regular Force recruiting efforts are barely able to stay ahead of attrition, no one with a hand held calculator questions the logical absurdities here. Even more delicious is the fact that many of the people defending it also think getting submarines is a "silly" idea and simply shrug at the notion that we can't equip and train what we already have in a timely and efficient manner. I hope they go ahead and do it, I'm looking forward to watching it play out. They’re not talking about “training civil servants to use guns” they’re talking about civil servants being encouraged to voluntarily join the military. People who support gun control mostly don’t have a problem with firearms in the hands of trained military and law enforcement, there’s nothing hypocritical about that. Quote
CdnFox Posted November 14, 2025 Report Posted November 14, 2025 9 hours ago, TreeBeard said: Why do you need more than a 5 round magazine? In case we want to shoot 6 times. Duh. Your logic seems to be that it's ok to use a gun to kill 5 people but 6 would be too many. Quote "That which doesn't kill me... Had better start running."
BeaverFever Posted November 14, 2025 Author Report Posted November 14, 2025 4 hours ago, I am Groot said: The Left is all about guilt-mongering now. Whatever happens anywhere in the world, somehow, WE are to blame. And then they'll whine about Poilievre being too negative! I wouldn’t call Esprit De Corps left and considering that Trump’s extra-judicial killings are clearly illegal we do need to ensure we’re not indirectly involved. Trump is already fishing around for his “gulf of Tonkin” moment, massing forces off the Venezuelan coast and conducting black ops throughout that country, he’s looking for a pretext to for invasion and regime change and he will find one or fabricate one soon. My bet is USA is prepping dissidents to stage a coup and then USA will use that as an excuse to invade to “bring stability”. Quote
CdnFox Posted November 14, 2025 Report Posted November 14, 2025 3 minutes ago, BeaverFever said: They’re not talking about “training civil servants to use guns” they’re talking about civil servants being encouraged to voluntarily join the military. People who support gun control mostly don’t have a problem with firearms in the hands of trained military and law enforcement, there’s nothing hypocritical about that. No bud. No joke, they're talking about training civil servants to use a gun. They will undergo one week of intense military training per year and will be considered a 'special reserve force'. THis won't be manditory as i understand it but employees will be 'strongly encouraged' and there will be generous additional pay for it. They hope to get 300,000 people enrolled in the end. this will be a message for them to be able to give bonuses and raises to people without actually having to build it in to the entire civil service. And this is where a lot of our military spending will go. Quote "That which doesn't kill me... Had better start running."
BeaverFever Posted November 14, 2025 Author Report Posted November 14, 2025 3 minutes ago, CdnFox said: In case we want to shoot 6 times. Duh. Your logic seems to be that it's ok to use a gun to kill 5 people but 6 would be too many. Your logic seems to be if we’re willing to allow them even one bullet that could kill one person then we should allow unlimited bullets otherwise we’re being unreasonable and drawing unreasonable limits. Quote
CdnFox Posted November 14, 2025 Report Posted November 14, 2025 4 minutes ago, BeaverFever said: Your logic seems to be if we’re willing to allow them even one bullet that could kill one person then we should allow unlimited bullets otherwise we’re being unreasonable and drawing unreasonable limits. Logic was never your thing You should practice more My logic would be that ammunition is not an effective way to control violent crime with guns. And my logic would be correct Quote "That which doesn't kill me... Had better start running."
Legato Posted November 14, 2025 Report Posted November 14, 2025 15 minutes ago, BeaverFever said: They’re not talking about “training civil servants to use guns” they’re talking about civil servants being encouraged to voluntarily join the military. People who support gun control mostly don’t have a problem with firearms in the hands of trained military and law enforcement, there’s nothing hypocritical about that. You should watch someone who has only fired a .22 pistol fire a little ole 9mm the first time, heaven forbid a 7.62x25 or a 357 magnum. Cop night at my pistol club was like the wild west. Quote
BeaverFever Posted November 14, 2025 Author Report Posted November 14, 2025 3 minutes ago, CdnFox said: No bud. No joke, they're talking about training civil servants to use a gun. They will undergo one week of intense military training per year and will be considered a 'special reserve force'. THis won't be manditory as i understand it but employees will be 'strongly encouraged' and there will be generous additional pay for it. They hope to get 300,000 people enrolled in the end. this will be a message for them to be able to give bonuses and raises to people without actually having to build it in to the entire civil service. And this is where a lot of our military spending will go. These people will still be sworn into the military not just civilian servants issued guns. We already have a Supplementary Reserve of low readiness personnel, mostly older veterans. They’re not meant to be a combat forc, I believe those who are still fit for full duties can theoretically individually transfer to the Primary Reserve or Reg force unit for duty FYI The Primary Reserve only receives 2 weeks per year of “intense military training” and then the rest of the year it’s generally 1 weekend per month and 1 evening per week, a lot which is indoors. I am still struggling to see what all the outrage is about, if interested civil servants get 1 week of military training per year so what? It’s just a talent pipeline for the Primary Reserve and reg force, they’re not sending bureaucrats into combat with only a week of training. Quote
BeaverFever Posted November 14, 2025 Author Report Posted November 14, 2025 7 minutes ago, CdnFox said: Logic was never your thing You should practice more My logic would be that ammunition is not an effective way to control violent crime with guns. And my logic would be correct No, your logic is incorrect as usual. There’s a reason police and military firearms have continuously evolved to carry more ammunition and why magazine fed pistols replaced revolvers. Greater magazine capacity increases firepower and significantly contributes to winning the firefight Quote
BeaverFever Posted November 14, 2025 Author Report Posted November 14, 2025 5 minutes ago, Legato said: You should watch someone who has only fired a .22 pistol fire a little ole 9mm the first time, heaven forbid a 7.62x25 or a 357 magnum. Cop night at my pistol club was like the wild west. Nobody is saying these civil servants will be given guns and unleashed on the public or the enemy. 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.