Pierre Poilievre: A One Trick Pony -- Or Are WE All Getting Tricked?

[Queenmandy85]

31 minutes ago, Zeitgeist said:

All of those decisions should’ve been made around the Centennial.  Missed opportunities.  

In 1967, I was on track to become an MP, then Minister of Defence and finally Prime Minister (in my head). Canadians should all get down on their knees and give thanks I never made it. 🤪The second best advice my dad ever gave me was to "get out of politics."

Edited February 18 by Queenmandy85

[CdnFox]

3 hours ago, ExFlyer said:

 

And yet, here you are, spending all 13,500+ posts either insulting everyone and shilling for PP.

Some people defend Trudeau just to p iss you off, I do it ll the time and you spin out of control. It is great fun

All political leaders are great and wise and have all the answers while they are in the opposition. PP is the perfect example of that LOL

 

Dude - you do it when i'm not even on the thread.

And while it would be quite flattering to think that you and eyeball and a few others think SO much about me that you're prepared to spend THAT much time just to amuse me, it seems pretty  unlikely

But i have to say  I'm loving this "um um um  ... we were just JOKING, honest!" defence

There are many losers on the left who are ashamed of their political leanings these days given trudeau's behavior and the results. And even those who lean further left into the ndp territory are completely connected to trudeau due to jagmeet.

And i get why.  But lets get real kiddo - you ain't doing it for me

 

[CdnFox]

1 hour ago, Queenmandy85 said:

 

I can want all I want, but it ain't gonna happen. We are not going to have a viable defence policy.

 

 

Why not? It's absolutely entirely possible to do.  We used to have one of the best armies and airforces and the third largest navy in the world.  We can definitely rebuild a small but strong force back to those levels.

If warfare over the last 100 years  or so has shown one thing to be true, it's that a small force of exceptionally well trained people with the best gear can outfight a much larger force effectively.  I don't think it would be that hard or take that many years to come up with a pretty viable defense force and policy.

[Queenmandy85]

The primary role of Canadian defence is to defend the nation from invasion. Four scenarios come to mind. 

1. Conventional war. For that you require things like air superiority, armour, infantry and superior naval assets. In addition, you need a reliable source of re-supply. As we see in the war in Europe, a small but strong force is not sufficient without a constant flow of replacements and ammunition. 

2. Irregular war. This is the most likely scenario for our position. We do not have the capacity for conventional war on the level required. The classic method of dealing with an occupying force is to let them settle in, then ramp up attacks against the enemy's soft targets in order to provoke an over reaction. Killing the families of enemy soldiers is an efficient way to  cause an over reaction. The more you can draw the occupation forces into harsher responses, the more you can stir the population into resistance. Over time, the occupation forces will find them selves bogged down and bleeding out. It takes years to accomplish this. It is the most terrible way to fight a war, but it does work in the end. Unfortunately, the country would never be the same.

3. Deterence. The cheapest way to defend the country is to assure any and all potential enemies that they will be completely and permanently destroyed if they move against us. (MAD). All you need for that is enough nuclear weapons to turn the enemy territory into a glass plate, and the message that we would rather die than submit.

4. Surrender. I've read most of Barbara Tuchman's work and some of Margaret MacMillan's books. In the last 800 years, war has accomplished very little in the way of positive outcomes. The Hundred years War, the Seven years War, the American revolution, the War of 1812 (North American theatre), and the Great War accomplished nothig that could not have been attained at the conference table. The Great War killed twenty five million people, and gave us Hitler, Stalin and Mao and World War Two. If Canada is invaded, life would change very little for us. If the war in Europe spreads to include NATO, there is nothing Canada can do to affect the outcome. Deterence is thinly thing we could provide, but that is already in place with France, the UK and the US. In the summer of 1939, the entire Canadian Armed Forces consisted of 4500 all ranks. The CAF is best suited to peacekeeping and aid to the civil power. (Natural disasters). This goes against my life time of banging on about how we need conscription and the most powerful armed forces in the western hemisphere, but the reality is, the CAF is well below its current personnel requirements because people do not want to enlist.

The lack of funding is a result of taxpayer resistance. The military is preparing for a war that we are unlikely to have, at a time when healthcare and education are in urgent need for more funding now. That is the reality governments face.

Edited February 19 by Queenmandy85

[CdnFox]

1 hour ago, Queenmandy85 said:

The primary role of Canadian defence is to defend the nation from invasion. Four scenarios come to mind. 

1. Conventional war. For that you require things like air superiority, armour, infantry and superior naval assets. In addition, you need a reliable source of re-supply. As we see in the war in Europe, a small but strong force is not sufficient without a constant flow of replacements and ammunition. 

2. Irregular war. This is the most likely scenario for our position. We do not have the capacity for conventional war on the level required. The classic method of dealing with an occupying force is to let them settle in, then ramp up attacks against the enemy's soft targets in order to provoke an over reaction. Killing the families of enemy soldiers is an efficient way to  cause an over reaction. The more you can draw the occupation forces into harsher responses, the more you can stir the population into resistance. Over time, the occupation forces will find them selves bogged down and bleeding out. It takes years to accomplish this. It is the most terrible way to fight a war, but it does work in the end. Unfortunately, the country would never be the same.

3. Deterence. The cheapest way to defend the country is to assure any and all potential enemies that they will be completely and permanently destroyed if they move against us. (MAD). All you need for that is enough nuclear weapons to turn the enemy territory into a glass plate, and the message that we would rather die than submit.

4. Surrender. I've read most of Barbara Tuchman's work and some of Margaret MacMillan's books. In the last 800 years, war has accomplished very little in the way of positive outcomes. The Hundred years War, the Seven years War, the American revolution, the War of 1812 (North American theatre), and the Great War accomplished nothig that could not have been attained at the conference table. The Great War killed twenty five million people, and gave us Hitler, Stalin and Mao and World War Two. If Canada is invaded, life would change very little for us. If the war in Europe spreads to include NATO, there is nothing Canada can do to affect the outcome. Deterence is thinly thing we could provide, but that is already in place with France, the UK and the US. In the summer of 1939, the entire Canadian Armed Forces consisted of 4500 all ranks. The CAF is best suited to peacekeeping and aid to the civil power. (Natural disasters). This goes against my life time of banging on about how we need conscription and the most powerful armed forces in the western hemisphere, but the reality is, the CAF is well below its current personnel requirements because people do not want to enlist.

The lack of funding is a result of taxpayer resistance. The military is preparing for a war that we are unlikely to have, at a time when healthcare and education are in urgent need for more funding now. That is the reality governments face.

I think your premise is flawed from the get go.

You feel 'conventional war' is like it was 100 or more years ago where it means an invasion to take over your entire country. But that's not true  The fact is we've seen that agressor states are more likely to snatch "bites" of territory at a time.  Like crimea.

Right now we're in a dispute with russians over our artic.  IF they move oil platforms and warships into our territory, what are we supposed to do? We've got nothing to fight back with or defend that territory. If they start military patrols off our coast we're just going to let them?

What if there was a naval blocade for some reason? Or they started intercepting our shipping? All plausible.

So conventional fighting isn't always about full scale invasions.

As to not having sufficient forces - we  could.  We could very easily.  There is NOTHING to stop us if we got serious about it from building a small but very very powerful military force that could punch far outside its' weight.

And that brings us back to deterrence.  Even in a conventional war the bad guys don't want to lose a tonne of men and equipment.  the ukraine war is turning into a disaster for russia.  If russia for example knew we have the firepower to do massive damage to any force they'd chose to deploy then they're going to think twice about deploying it.

As to your theory that surrender changes nothing, yeah... have a chat with the jews about that.  History may show warfare is non productive but it equally shows that capitulation is even worse.

A compact but well structured military that's well trained and equipped and supported is critical to maintaining your sovereignty.

 

 

 

[Queenmandy85]

On 2/17/2024 at 8:49 AM, Zeitgeist said:

1. He should scrap the carbon tax and the rebate 

2. stop funding war in Ukraine,

3. deregulate the oil and gas sector (which will lower fuel and heating prices),

4. scrap all  LGBTQ2SI+ and other special interest programs, reduce the size of government departments by at least 25%,

5. cut funding to the CBC and media in half, 

6. I also suggest a major freeing up of federal and Crown lands, combined with freer zoning, to allow the housing supply to expand, lowering home prices.  Incentivize northern growth.

1. Most people get back more than they pay and it is vital to get people to reduce the consumption of petroleum products, not just to combat the greenhouse effect, but also to preserve our reserves for future generations. 

2. If Russia over runs the Ukraine, not only will there be a second holodomor, but it will give Russia the mistaken idea that NATO will not respond to an attack on NATO countries. ie. WW3.

3. Same as # 1. We need to preserve our coal and petroleum reserves for future generations and at the same time, try to prevent our future decendents from being barbecued.

4. What programs for the millions of Canadians who are members of the LGBTQ community would you scrap, and why?

5. The suggestion has been made that the CBC is a propaganda arm of the Liberal Party. If I were Pierre I would tell the CBC to keep doing what they are doing. If they are boosting the grits, why has Trudeau been boosted in the polls from 189 seats all the way up to 64 seats? If the CBC had it's funding increased they could probably increase Trudeau all the way up to 12 seats. If you believe that Federal government financial support for the media means the media will lean towards supporting the party in power, then Mr. Poilievre should increase the subsidies when he takes office in a few months.

6. The essence of Canada is our wilderness. We need to reduce our population so we don't destroy what's left of the country. If we reduce our population back down to 15 million. that frees up a lot of existing housing. It has to be done slowly but the first step is to stop immigration. 

[Zeitgeist]

1. What we don’t sell in oil and gas other countries will, but our country doesn’t benefit.  Pump it at a reasonable pace before the climate hypocrites at the UN seek all-out bans.

2. Russia would never invade a NATO country and Ukraine is mostly an artificial jurisdiction created by Stalin under the Soviet Union.  Many Ukrainian national heroes were Nazi allies.  Ukraine is a complicated mess.  Crimea used to be part of Russia.  Donbass should be an autonomous zone ruled locally with free elections under international observers. Throwing money and arms at Ukraine has exacerbated the suffering of Ukrainians.  These events are mostly the result of bad US State Department policy that reneged on promises not to expand NATO further east.  Russia needs to be contained but through agreements.

3. Scrap all equity, DEI, gender ideology, and other highly contestable pseudoscience, which is basically cultural Marxism rehashed with race/LGBTQ superimposed over class narratives. It’s also deeply racist and it looks a lot like grooming when rainbow flags are the prevalent symbol in elementary schools.

4. Government needs to stop funding media altogether. Canada isn’t a small country anymore struggling to express its culture. People buy quality. Media has become a toady of government in a quid pro quo that’s gutted the free press.

5. You’re not going to slash Canada’s population without some sick form of tyrannical social engineering, which is already happening with MAID, unlimited abortion access, legal hard drugs, etc.  The reality is that substantially slashing our population would put us in a depression.  I do think we need to incentivize settlement to the north so we’re more in harmony with nature and we preserve our best arable land and have less congestion for a better quality of life.  Modest annual growth that over time stabilizes the country’s size at about the current population but certainly not much higher would be ideal. We will see big worldwide population decreases in the 2050’s.

Edited February 19 by Zeitgeist

[Queenmandy85]

20 minutes ago, CdnFox said:

I think your premise is flawed from the get go.

You feel 'conventional war' is like it was 100 or more years ago where it means an invasion to take over your entire country. But that's not true  The fact is we've seen that agressor states are more likely to snatch "bites" of territory at a time.  Like crimea.

Right now we're in a dispute with russians over our artic.  IF they move oil platforms and warships into our territory, what are we supposed to do? We've got nothing to fight back with or defend that territory. If they start military patrols off our coast we're just going to let them?

What if there was a naval blocade for some reason? Or they started intercepting our shipping? All plausible.

So conventional fighting isn't always about full scale invasions.

As to not having sufficient forces - we  could.  We could very easily.  There is NOTHING to stop us if we got serious about it from building a small but very very powerful military force that could punch far outside its' weight.

And that brings us back to deterrence.  Even in a conventional war the bad guys don't want to lose a tonne of men and equipment.  the ukraine war is turning into a disaster for russia.  If russia for example knew we have the firepower to do massive damage to any force they'd chose to deploy then they're going to think twice about deploying it.

As to your theory that surrender changes nothing, yeah... have a chat with the jews about that.  History may show warfare is non productive but it equally shows that capitulation is even worse.

A compact but well structured military that's well trained and equipped and supported is critical to maintaining your sovereignty.

 

 

 

My premise is based on the geographical fact we live in a fire proof duplex.The only nation that can logistically invade us is the US. They have invaded us twice and we have kicked them out both times, but it required assistance from Britain.

As for the little bits idea, yes, Russia may try to take our Arctic territory. Their ships patrolling is no different from US ships patrolling in our waters. If they set up a mining exploration site, send in the RCMP. If the Russians resist with violence, invoke article 5. We are members of NATO and NORAD and it is vital to maintain that membership, particularly since the US will likely quit NATO in the next 5 years. However, if we had sufficiant strategic nuclear forces, then we can deter the Russians and the Americans from messing with us.

My theory that little would change if we were invaded, is based on the unlikely (for the next 10 months) event we are going to be invaded by the United States. A compact but well structured military that's well trained and equipped would be overrun very quickly. Granted, the only war the US has ever won without foreign assistance was the civil war and the wars against Spain / Mexico, but if I were a betting man, in a conventional war between the US and Canada, my money would be on the USA. Life under the Yankee tyrant would not be that different from now, except I can keep my guns.

When I was attending U-Vic, I learned about Colonel J. Sutherland Brown. After the Great War, Colonel J. Sutherland "Buster" Brown was the Director of Military Operations and Intelligence. He was tasked with developing Canada's next war plan and Defence Scheme Number One was born. It was an inspiration. It was Canada's only war plan from 1920 to 1930. They said Brown was a bit la la. Then a grad student in 1970 was doing research in the US Army archives and discovered the US Army's Plan 1919, the plan to invade Canada. Brown was right all along.

God, I love history!

 

 

 

 

 

 

[Queenmandy85]

1 hour ago, Zeitgeist said:

1. What we don’t sell in oil and gas other countries will, but our country doesn’t benefit.  Pump it at a reasonable pace before the climate hypocrites at the UN seek all-out bans.

2. Russia would never invade a NATO country and Ukraine is mostly an artificial jurisdiction created by Stalin under the Soviet Union.  Many Ukrainian national heroes were Nazi allies.  Ukraine is a complicated mess.  Crimea used to be part of Russia.  Donbass should be an autonomous zone ruled locally with free elections under international observers. Throwing money and arms at Ukraine has exacerbated the suffering of Ukrainians.  These events are mostly the result of bad US State Department policy that reneged on promises not to expand NATO further east.  Russia needs to be contained but through agreements.

3. Scrap all equity, DEI, gender ideology, and other highly contestable pseudoscience, which is basically cultural Marxism rehashed with race/LGBTQ superimposed over class narratives. It’s also deeply racist and it looks a lot like grooming when rainbow flags are the prevalent symbol in elementary schools.

4. Government needs to stop funding media altogether. Canada isn’t a small country anymore struggling to express its culture. People buy quality. Media has become a toady of government in a quid pro quo that’s gutted the free press.

5. You’re not going to slash Canada’s population without some sick form of tyrannical social engineering, which is already happening with MAID, unlimited abortion access, legal hard drugs, etc.  The reality is that substantially slashing our population would put us in a depression.  I do think we need to incentivize settlement to the north so we’re more in harmony with nature and we preserve our best arable land and have less congestion for a better quality of life.  Modest annual growth that over time stabilizes the country’s size at about the current population but certainly not much higher would be ideal. We will see big worldwide population decreases in the 2050’s.

1. We need to preserve our petroleum reserves so future generations of Canadians will have lubricating oil. Without that, nothing moves.

2. There is a reason Ukrainians saw the Germans as liberators. Holodomor. That is why Ukrainians hate the prospect Russian domination ever again. Former Warsaw Pact vassal states begged NATO for membership as soon as they threw off the Russian yoke. The Ukrainians are suffering now, but they know better than anyone what will happen to any Ukrainians taken by the Russians. One word tells you all you need to know about why Ukraine needs all the help we can give them. Holodomor.

Two thousand years ago the proudest boast was "civis Romanus sum." Sixty years ago, the proudest boast was "Ice bin bin Berliner."Today, in the world of freedom, the proudest boast is I am a Ukrainian.

There are many people in the world who really don't understand, or say they don't, what is the great issue between the free world and the Russian world. Let them come to Kyiv. There are some who say that Putin is the wave of the future. Let them come to Kyiv. And there are some who say in Europe and elsewhere we can work with the Russians. Let them come to Kyiv. And there are even a few who say that it is true that Russia is an evil system, but it permits us to make economic progress. Lass' sie nach Kyiv kommen. Let them come to Kyiv.

3. Words fail me. You might want to run that by someone in your family or circle of friends who belongs to the LGBTQ community.

4. Every country has a public broadcaster. France, Norway Germany Britain and the USA and a hundred others. The CBC is one of the most under funded in the world. If the CBC is a spokes person to the Liberals, (which it isn't) the Poilievre government will be their paymaster and it will be the CPC propoganda arm. A politician has to be truly nuts to go out of his way to alienate himself to the press. The way things are going, we are going to lose private broadcasting. The CBC is a lot more than politics and news. It provides comedy, drama and best of all, educational programming such as the "Nature of Things" and "Quirks and Quarks."

5. I agree it is a pipe dream. The 2050 population decline may happen, but for how long?

Edited February 19 by Queenmandy85

[CdnFox]

57 minutes ago, Queenmandy85 said:

My premise is based on the geographical fact we live in a fire proof duplex.The only nation that can logistically invade us is the US.

 

That's simply false.  This isn't the 1700s.

Russia can sieze our territorial waters tomorrow.  China and north korea can both strike our cities or infastructure tomorrow. Terrorists can fly a plane across the atlantic and into a building tomorrow. A terrorist organization can 'immigrate' 500 terrorist fighters who could start attacking infrastructure or killing political leaders tomorrow.

These threats are real, they're present, and we deserve to be defended against them.

I don't know where you're actually living but it's not reality.

[Queenmandy85]

5 minutes ago, CdnFox said:

That's simply false.  This isn't the 1700s.

Russia can sieze our territorial waters tomorrow.  China and north korea can both strike our cities or infastructure tomorrow. Terrorists can fly a plane across the atlantic and into a building tomorrow. A terrorist organization can 'immigrate' 500 terrorist fighters who could start attacking infrastructure or killing political leaders tomorrow.

These threats are real, they're present, and we deserve to be defended against them.

I don't know where you're actually living but it's not reality.

Article 5. When the USA was attacked on Sept. 11th, we went to war as part of NATO. 

Edited February 19 by Queenmandy85

[Zeitgeist]

1 hour ago, Queenmandy85 said:

1. We need to preserve our petroleum reserves so future generations of Canadians will have lubricating oil. Without that, nothing moves.

2. There is a reason Ukrainians saw the Germans as liberators. Holodomor. That is why Ukrainians hate the prospect Russian domination ever again. Former Warsaw Pact vassal states begged NATO for membership as soon as they threw off the Russian yoke. The Ukrainians are suffering now, but they know better than anyone what will happen to any Ukrainians taken by the Russians. One word tells you all you need to know about why Ukraine needs all the help we can give them. Holodomor.

Two thousand years ago the proudest boast was "civis Romanus sum." Sixty years ago, the proudest boast was "Ice bin bin Berliner."Today, in the world of freedom, the proudest boast is I am a Ukrainian.

There are many people in the world who really don't understand, or say they don't, what is the great issue between the free world and the Russian world. Let them come to Kyiv. There are some who say that Putin is the wave of the future. Let them come to Kyiv. And there are some who say in Europe and elsewhere we can work with the Russians. Let them come to Kyiv. And there are even a few who say that it is true that Russia is an evil system, but it permits us to make economic progress. Lass' sie nach Kyiv kommen. Let them come to Kyiv.

3. Words fail me. You might want to run that by someone in your family or circle of friends who belongs to the LGBTQ community.

4. Every country has a public broadcaster. France, Norway Germany Britain and the USA and a hundred others. The CBC is one of the most under funded in the world. If the CBC is a spokes person to the Liberals, (which it isn't) the Poilievre government will be their paymaster and it will be the CPC propoganda arm. A politician has to be truly nuts to go out of his way to alienate himself to the press. The way things are going, we are going to lose private broadcasting. The CBC is a lot more than politics and news. It provides comedy, drama and best of all, educational programming such as the "Nature of Things" and "Quirks and Quarks."

5. I agree it is a pipe dream. The 2050 population decline may happen, but for how long?

I stand by everything I said. I certainly wouldn’t give more fuel to a well-funded militant LGBTQ movement that has fully infiltrated public education to the extent that a quarter of Gen Z identifies itself as one of the stripes. Where does a movement that supports relationships and surgeries/treatments that lower our already negative birth rate lead us as a civilization?  It breaks longstanding taboos and eliminates male and female role models.  It’s for sure a dubious mission that presents itself under the banner of inclusion but manifests in disturbing behaviour like highly sexualized child parades.

The only thing I would add on Ukraine is that the Ukrainians in their regions, including the Hungarian or Russian speaking, should self-determine their future without Russian or Western interference.  You’ll need blue berets and international observers for that. Military solutions aren’t working. 

Edited February 19 by Zeitgeist

[Michael Hardner]

2 hours ago, Queenmandy85 said:

Article 5. When the USA was attacked on Sept. 11th, we went to war as part of NATO. 

We lost over 100 of our people in Afghanistan.

[CdnFox]

2 hours ago, Queenmandy85 said:

Article 5. When the USA was attacked on Sept. 11th, we went to war as part of NATO. 

And it would be nice if we still had the capacity to do that.  Thanks for making my point.

The us was attacked.  We could be attacked.  our capacity to defend ourselves from attack is lower today than it was at the time of 9/11. Our ability to project power around the world in support of our nato or UN allies is far less. And it's dropping.

If we can't meaningfully contribute to our own defense, how can we expect others to keep doing it for us.

 

[Queenmandy85]

21 hours ago, CdnFox said:

If we can't meaningfully contribute to our own defense, how can we expect others to keep doing it for us.

A few months ago, I laid out my view of a viable Defence policy that would give Canada the ability to defend itsself. I am trying to remember if you supported it.

[CdnFox]

18 minutes ago, Queenmandy85 said:

A few months ago, I laid out my view of a viable Defence policy that would give Canada the ability to defend itsself. I am trying to remember if you supported it.

Honestly i don't remember it at all which probably means i didn't see it or read it at the time.  Even I, omnipresent as i am, can't read EVERYTHING   maybe do the coles notes version here? or if you can find where you said it before without too much trouble i'll go back and read it.

[Army Guy]

On 2/19/2024 at 1:38 PM, Queenmandy85 said:

My premise is based on the geographical fact we live in a fire proof duplex.The only nation that can logistically invade us is the US. They have invaded us twice and we have kicked them out both times, but it required assistance from Britain.

As for the little bits idea, yes, Russia may try to take our Arctic territory. Their ships patrolling is no different from US ships patrolling in our waters. If they set up a mining exploration site, send in the RCMP. If the Russians resist with violence, invoke article 5. We are members of NATO and NORAD and it is vital to maintain that membership, particularly since the US will likely quit NATO in the next 5 years. However, if we had sufficiant strategic nuclear forces, then we can deter the Russians and the Americans from messing with us.

My theory that little would change if we were invaded, is based on the unlikely (for the next 10 months) event we are going to be invaded by the United States. A compact but well structured military that's well trained and equipped would be overrun very quickly. Granted, the only war the US has ever won without foreign assistance was the civil war and the wars against Spain / Mexico, but if I were a betting man, in a conventional war between the US and Canada, my money would be on the USA. Life under the Yankee tyrant would not be that different from now, except I can keep my guns.

When I was attending U-Vic, I learned about Colonel J. Sutherland Brown. After the Great War, Colonel J. Sutherland "Buster" Brown was the Director of Military Operations and Intelligence. He was tasked with developing Canada's next war plan and Defence Scheme Number One was born. It was an inspiration. It was Canada's only war plan from 1920 to 1930. They said Brown was a bit la la. Then a grad student in 1970 was doing research in the US Army archives and discovered the US Army's Plan 1919, the plan to invade Canada. Brown was right all along.

God, I love history!

 

Nothing is fire proof, and the Germans thought the same thing about the beaches of normandy, it is not possible...and yet the allies did it in a few days...As for the Americans things have changed pretty drastically in thousand couple hundred years...if they wanted they could take Canada over the long weekend...

Your forgetting Trumps newer remarks those that do not meet the 2 % mark will not be afforded the protection of the US...he added he would actually encourage the idea of a foreign invasion...So before they come marching into Canada the question would or should be why should Americans spill blood for us when we are to lazy, or cheap to defend ourselves...and if they did come do you not think there would be some caveats...life changing caveats...Your remarks about the US never winning a war without foreign assistance is misleading , WWI and WWII were not american wars but european, they joined in later....and the Europeans would have never even come close to defeating Germany without American assistance...

Life for most Canadians would change a lot...our left would disappear...our right would be our new left and the right would be more like the republicans.... it would be a major change for most Canadians, "America fuc* ya"

There are plans for almost everything or every situation, with new ones presenting themselves daily...But defending ourselves from the US...is probably not amongst them...there are more female marines than there is total canadian army personal...the 101 airborne div, and the 82 air mobile divisions could take Canada overnight...while our boys would still be putting up their manbuns and finding their asses...it would not be very useful to put up a fight when the sheer numbers alone would  find our military destroyed on the battle field in quick order...their deaths would not serve anyone...

Edited February 22 by Army Guy

[Army Guy]

On 2/19/2024 at 4:58 PM, Michael Hardner said:

We lost over 100 of our people in Afghanistan.

158, plus 1 diplomat, and 6 civilians...for those who are keeping track...

Edited February 22 by Army Guy

[eyeball]

5 hours ago, Army Guy said:

Life for most Canadians would change a lot...our left would disappear...our right would be our new left and the right would be more like the republicans.... it would be a major change for most Canadians, "America fuc* ya"

Actually the absorption of some 27 million Canadian voters into America's elections might easily make it impossible for Republicans to ever win again.

This is what you'd be looking at.

https://www.thewrit.ca/p/how-canada-would-vote-in-a-us-election

[Queenmandy85]

21 hours ago, Army Guy said:

if they wanted they could take Canada over the long weekend...

The reality of an American invasion would be , we would resign ourselves to it and send 16 Democrats to the Senate, 40 more to the House, and in about 12 years, a Canadian in the Whitehouse. We may not have a large military, but what the Germans and Japanese are to engineering and the Americans are to marketing, Canadians are to politics. You may not like our politicians but we do politics better than any othe nation in the world, from MacDonald to MacKenzie King to Poilievre, politics is our specialty.

"President Pierre Poilievre." It has a nice ring to it. Every time the US Army went in to a tinpot little country (TPLC), it would be preceded by a message, "Sorry."

Edited February 23 by Queenmandy85

[ExFlyer]

1 hour ago, Queenmandy85 said:

The reality of an American invasion would be , we would resign ourselves to it and send 16 Democrats to the Senate, 40 more to the House, and in about 12 years, a Canadian in the Whitehouse. We may not have a large military, but what the Germans and Japanese are to engineering and the Americans are to marketing, Canadians are to politics. You may not like our politicians but we do politics better than any othe nation in the world, from MacDonald to MacKenzie King to Poilievre, politics is our specialty.

"President Pierre Poilievre." It has a nice ring to it. Every time the US Army went in to a tinpot little country (TPLC), it would be preceded by a message, "Sorry."

"The reality of an American invasion would be " is that it could very well be welcomed by a lot of Canadians, especially from the West.

The Quebecers would be put in their place in a heartbeat LOL

We may have done politics better but we have become very American in our politics. Now you are either Conservative or Liberal and there is true hate between one to the other (demonstrated by the rhetoric of the party leaders). This forum is a microcosm of Canadian politics now.

[Moonbox]

The "reality" of an American invasion is that it's a pretty silly thought-exercise.  

[Queenmandy85]

1 hour ago, Moonbox said:

The "reality" of an American invasion is that it's a pretty silly thought-exercise.  

After the Great War, the Director of Military Operations and Intelligence, Colonel J. Sutherland (Buster) Brown, was ordered to draw up plans for the next war Canada would be involved in. Defence Scheme Number One was Canada's only war plan from 1920 - 1930.

In 1970, a grad student doing research in the US Army archives discovered Plan 1919. 

On Jan. 20, 2025, there may be a change in Canada - US relations.

This is far fetched, but we have had to repel American invasions in the past. 

 

[Nefarious Banana]

23 minutes ago, Queenmandy85 said:

After the Great War, the Director of Military Operations and Intelligence, Colonel J. Sutherland (Buster) Brown, was ordered to draw up plans for the next war Canada would be involved in. Defence Scheme Number One was Canada's only war plan from 1920 - 1930.

In 1970, a grad student doing research in the US Army archives discovered Plan 1919. 

On Jan. 20, 2025, there may be a change in Canada - US relations.

This is far fetched, but we have had to repel American invasions in the past. 

 

Invasion to take over Canada . . .absurd.  What invading country would want Quebec?  The rest of Canada doesn't even want them.  Quebec brings nothing to the picnic, hogs down everyone else's goodies, then whines long and loud about it.  America want Canada?  Why would they?   We sell/deal with them now . . . .

[Army Guy]

5 hours ago, Queenmandy85 said:

The reality of an American invasion would be , we would resign ourselves to it and send 16 Democrats to the Senate, 40 more to the House, and in about 12 years, a Canadian in the Whitehouse. We may not have a large military, but what the Germans and Japanese are to engineering and the Americans are to marketing, Canadians are to politics. You may not like our politicians but we do politics better than any othe nation in the world, from MacDonald to MacKenzie King to Poilievre, politics is our specialty.

"President Pierre Poilievre." It has a nice ring to it. Every time the US Army went in to a tinpot little country (TPLC), it would be preceded by a message, "Sorry."

Sorry Queen but when i read your statement i almost choked on my beer ...i was looking for the punch line but some how i think your serious...There are some very serious political contenders out there that would blow away any Canadian politician...I mean how do you explain Justin , joe clark, Mr.Crietien you can't these were not the best Canadians available for the job, just the ones that wanted a job where they could influence bank accounts...I could name off dozens of politicians that have made a huge difference in the world , not just their countries....Canadian PM's could not even hold their dirty laundry...