Canada only has 28k soldiers in it's army

[Queenmandy85]

16 hours ago, Army Guy said:

You keep posting these unrealistic numbers...PP has already told you how he is going to increase spending,

As I asked above, where are my numbers wrong?

Mr. Poilievre has not committed to 2% of GDP. While any increase is welcomed, even he cannot work miracles. Governments can only do what the electorate will allow.

[Dougie93]

6 hours ago, Queenmandy85 said:

How do you propose to attract that many recruits?

simply assert the glorious martial history of British North America

to fight for Wolfe & Montcalm upon the Plains of Abraham

to fight for General Brock & the Grand River Mohawks at the Heights of Queenston

to fight for Lord Byng & General Currie at Hill One Four Five upon Vimy Ridge

from Amiens to Mons

 from Ortona to Juno Beach

from Kapyong Hill to Kandahar Province

Regiment, Colours, Commander-in-Chief

Cuidich 'n Righ

[ExFlyer]

6 minutes ago, Dougie93 said:

simply assert the glorious martial history of British North America

to fight for Wolfe & Montcalm upon the Plains of Abraham

to fight for General Brock & the Grand River Mohawks at the Heights of Queenston

to fight for Lord Byng & General Currie at Hill One Four Five upon Vimy Ridge

from Amiens to Mons

 from Ortona to Juno Beach

from Kapyong Hill to Kandahar Province

Regiment, Colours, Commander-in-Chief

Cuidich 'n Righ

No one gives a rats ass about 100 year old military. Let alone knowing who the hell you are babbling about.

Also, recruitment problems are for the military not your friggen dried up old part time regiment.

You ain't gonna get anyone to sign up with that shit LOL

[Queenmandy85]

That has always worked for me, but I sometimes get a sense that the Conservative prime directive of God, King and Country is no longer resonant. Perhaps, you and I are the only Conservatives left. We live in a world of liberals, republicans and bolsheviks.

[I am Groot]

On 4/14/2024 at 5:59 PM, Army Guy said:

You don't have to be a PT god, to accomplish anything a infantrymen can, it's it's more mental than physical...you would be surprised what the human body can do when you force it.

And then there are the penalties exacted on that human body for going to those extremes.

Even though she was a standout Bowdoin athlete and could bench press 145 pounds and squat 200 pounds, was ranked 4th out of a class of 52 in Officer Candidate School and excelled at Marine Corps fitness tests, Petronio's deployment in combat operations in Iraq and Afghanistan took a brutal toll on her 5-foot-3-inch body. 

"By the fifth month into the deployment, I had muscle atrophy in my thighs that was causing me to constantly trip and my legs to buckle with the slightest grade change,” she wrote. “My agility during firefights and mobility on and off vehicles and perimeter walls was seriously hindering my response time and overall capability. It was evident that stress and muscular deterioration was affecting everyone regardless of gender; however, the rate of my deterioration was noticeably faster than that of male Marines and further compounded by gender-specific medical conditions.” She lost 17 pounds on an already lean body.

 

On 4/14/2024 at 5:59 PM, Army Guy said:

Everyone is forgetting there are also small framed men that are in the infantry as well, and they manage because they know what they can press their bodies to do... 

It's not about small frames. It's about the anatomical differences between male and females. A smaller framed male can still carry more, move faster, will have more endurance, lung capacity, muscle mass, etc., than a female of comparable size. 

https://mcgazette.blogspot.com/2012/07/get-over-it-we-are-not-all-created.html

[I am Groot]

On 4/14/2024 at 3:38 PM, Queenmandy85 said:

In order to get to 2%, the average taxpayer will have to pay an extra $700 in taxes. Spending on defence is easy. Getting the revenue to pay for it is the problem. Why do you think governments have let the Forces decline so much? If the voters wanted a credible Canadian military, the governments would do it. The fact that governments don't make defence a priority is because it isn't a priority for the voters. 

Beyond the increase in the Defence budget is the re-building in our armaments industry. That is a big price tag in its self.

And how much did we throw away during the great Covid money splurge? Trudeau has been promising tens of billions in new spending this year on housing, on dental plans, on natives, on the environment - whenever he decides he wants to spend money he has no difficulty just doing it.

Cut other programs. I'm sure the Tories won't have trouble finding a lot of those that can go. The Liberals have hired a hundred thousand more public servants in the last eight years in order to administer all their new vote buying programs. Get rid of some of those programs, get rid of the horrific bureaucracy that surrounds doing ANYTHING in this country, and you'll save a mint. While we're at it, stop funding activists. Every activist group seems to be getting its money from the government. No money to any of them! If you want to complain or lobby about something you pay for it!

And if it requires a tax increase, as well, then so be it. 

[DUI_Offender]

9 hours ago, Queenmandy85 said:

Perhaps I am mathematically challenged. 

We have about 28 million taxpayers. We spend $20 billion on defence now. To get to 2%, we need another $18 Billion, but friction being what it is, I rounded it up to $20 billion over and above what we pay now. $20 billion divided by 28 million taxpayers equals $714. If we presume nothing changes and the $18 billion remains the same, (like prices never go up in government procurements) it comes out to $642.86 per taxpayer.

So, I am relying on your superior math skills to show me my error.

You failed math.

[DUI_Offender]

On 4/14/2024 at 11:58 AM, Queenmandy85 said:

Except that not enough Canadians are willing to serve and even fewer are willing to pay for it. We have immediate problems with under funded education system, healthcare and housing. It is hard enough to get people to pay taxes to fix those immediate problems without also having to get them to pay for defence, which most people have no interest in. We need to train and hire math, chemistry, physics and geography teachers, family doctors and trades people more than infantry soldiers. People need to get a decent education in the sciences now, access to a family physician now, and a roof over their heads now. They don't see war as imminent and even if it were, the Canadian Armed Forces are not percieved by most taxpayers as sufficient to make the investment of another $20 billion over what we spend now as worth it. I have argued for an effective military for over a half a century and never changed anyone's mind except for my own.

I look at what is happening in Gaza. I understand the reaction of Israel, but all they have accomplished is to strengthen their enemies and kill tens of thousands of people who had nothing to do with Hamas. The Israeli response has achieved nothing. They have taught their enemies how to stick it to Israel. 

It has taught the enemies not to fvck with Israel.

[Dougie93]

On 4/13/2024 at 10:50 PM, Army Guy said:

True enough, hand to hand combat has saved my life more than once, 

once you reach the pinnacle at Joint Task Force 2 ; everything is CQB

MMA is a huge component of being a Special Operations Assaulter

it's the ultimate infantry tasking

see, Randy Turner, JTF2 Operator ( ret. ) of Direct Action Combat Performance Inc

https://www.youtube.com/@direct_action_combat/videos

[Army Guy]

20 hours ago, I am Groot said:

And then there are the penalties exacted on that human body for going to those extremes.

Even though she was a standout Bowdoin athlete and could bench press 145 pounds and squat 200 pounds, was ranked 4th out of a class of 52 in Officer Candidate School and excelled at Marine Corps fitness tests, Petronio's deployment in combat operations in Iraq and Afghanistan took a brutal toll on her 5-foot-3-inch body. 

"By the fifth month into the deployment, I had muscle atrophy in my thighs that was causing me to constantly trip and my legs to buckle with the slightest grade change,” she wrote. “My agility during firefights and mobility on and off vehicles and perimeter walls was seriously hindering my response time and overall capability. It was evident that stress and muscular deterioration was affecting everyone regardless of gender; however, the rate of my deterioration was noticeably faster than that of male Marines and further compounded by gender-specific medical conditions.” She lost 17 pounds on an already lean body.

 

It's not about small frames. It's about the anatomical differences between male and females. A smaller framed male can still carry more, move faster, will have more endurance, lung capacity, muscle mass, etc., than a female of comparable size. 

https://mcgazette.blogspot.com/2012/07/get-over-it-we-are-not-all-created.html

It is easy to find examples of individuals that could not maintain the standards during deployment, as there it is easy to provide examples of females that have completed a deployment without any abnormal medical conditions... you could also find the same conditions that affected men....My point is in today's military females serving in combat roles have been accepted by our politicians, the military, and most Canadians...those that do not accept this line of thinking are no longer welcome in the forces, that was a quote by the current CDS...not mine, 

Changing this thinking is going to take some drastic changes in our new morals and values...much like this infinite genders thing that has somehow taken traction. I think EX flyer hit the nail on the head, every trade in the military especially the infantry depend on the dynamics of the section... we fight as a team, some will end up doing more, carrying more, etc etc...all contributing in different ways, those that don't contribute or become a drag on that dynamic normally end up being forced to find a new job...It is not perfect, but it does give those that want a chance to be an infanteer, or whatever else, that opportunity is there...

 

[Dougie93]

4 minutes ago, Army Guy said:

It is easy to find examples of individuals that could not maintain the standards during deployment, as there it is easy to provide examples of females that have completed a deployment without any abnormal medical conditions... you could also find the same conditions that affected men....My point is in today's military females serving in combat roles have been accepted by our politicians, the military, and most Canadians...those that do not accept this line of thinking are no longer welcome in the forces, that was a quote by the current CDS...not mine, 

Changing this thinking is going to take some drastic changes in our new morals and values...much like this infinite genders thing that has somehow taken traction. I think EX flyer hit the nail on the head, every trade in the military especially the infantry depend on the dynamics of the section... we fight as a team, some will end up doing more, carrying more, etc etc...all contributing in different ways, those that don't contribute or become a drag on that dynamic normally end up being forced to find a new job...It is not perfect, but it does give those that want a chance to be an infanteer, or whatever else, that opportunity is there...

 

 HM Royal Canadian Infantry Corps was always an elite formation

Shock Troops of the Empire to win the Great War from Amiens to Mons

that was Canada's only edge ; best infantry in the world

you can give that up for political expediency, no doubt

but then Canada has lost the only edge it ever had

[Army Guy]

On 4/15/2024 at 11:39 AM, Queenmandy85 said:

As I asked above, where are my numbers wrong?

Mr. Poilievre has not committed to 2% of GDP. While any increase is welcomed, even he cannot work miracles. Governments can only do what the electorate will allow.

Because there are many ways to skin a cat, first off, how many Canadians even blinked an eye when the liberals spent well over 700 Bil in less than 2 or 3 years...no taxes were increased, no social programs shut down..so part of my concern is why did we not say anything then...and when the military is brought up people sit up and start talking not about do we need it, no it is about we can't afford that....I think it is because it is not a social program that dumps money into their pockets...

Cutting the fat is one way to pay for a 2 % military...trust me their are many places the fat is thick...or does not serve all Canadians. It is not about miracles, it is about taking a good look at what we do spend,and do we really need to spend there. 

[Army Guy]

7 minutes ago, Dougie93 said:

 HM Royal Canadian Infantry Corps was always an elite formation

Shock Troops of the Empire to win the Great War from Amiens to Mons

that was Canada's only edge ; best infantry in the world

you can give that up for political expediency, no doubt

but then Canada has lost the only edge it ever had

We have lost a lot of things, a huge amount of capabilities the Infantry used to have were lost , some of them have come back like Anti Armor Plt...not completely but it is coming back, with ground mount tow launchers, and on the new side by side has tubes mounted...gone are the LAV III TUA's ...we have lost the Armor recce element, Mortars, Pioneers is just starting to make a come back, again no vehicle mounted stuff, Medics are gone, so are Rad Op's, do to shortages, Pipes and drums funding was cut back, Training is just a dream...

[ExFlyer]

26 minutes ago, Army Guy said:

It is easy to find examples of individuals that could not maintain the standards during deployment, as there it is easy to provide examples of females that have completed a deployment without any abnormal medical conditions... you could also find the same conditions that affected men....My point is in today's military females serving in combat roles have been accepted by our politicians, the military, and most Canadians...those that do not accept this line of thinking are no longer welcome in the forces, that was a quote by the current CDS...not mine, 

Changing this thinking is going to take some drastic changes in our new morals and values...much like this infinite genders thing that has somehow taken traction. I think EX flyer hit the nail on the head, every trade in the military especially the infantry depend on the dynamics of the section... we fight as a team, some will end up doing more, carrying more, etc etc...all contributing in different ways, those that don't contribute or become a drag on that dynamic normally end up being forced to find a new job...It is not perfect, but it does give those that want a chance to be an infanteer, or whatever else, that opportunity is there...

 

Many years ago one of my mentors said that good leaders are not he ones that do it all or know it all but to be able to identify who can do what needs to be done and gets that done.  A team is made up of lots of skills and using them all to the utmost makes the team great.... be it in an infantry squad, a aviation mechanic crew, a air crew of a navy (sorry, don't know what a group of navy folks are called ...a pontoon LOL)?

There are no super soldiers or airmen or sailors, they are all part of a team that does a lot.

[Queenmandy85]

On 4/15/2024 at 4:47 PM, I am Groot said:

And how much did we throw away during the great Covid money splurge? Trudeau has been promising tens of billions in new spending this year on housing, on dental plans, on natives, on the environment - whenever he decides he wants to spend money he has no difficulty just doing it.

During the onslaught of the Covid pandemic, it was essential to,in the words of Conservative Premier Higgs, "Stay the blazes home." The stringent measures enacted by the provincial and federal governments cost a lot of money, but they saved tens of thousands of lives. Time was critical. The close co-ordination of provinces and the federal governments resulted in better outcomes than nations who failed to take it seriously.

Housing is a more important issue for many Canadians than defence.

The dental plan is an issue that the NDP required in exchange for their support. For the government to toss that support would be suicide. It has bought time for the government. It is easy for us to say tell them to step over the cliff, but would you or I just throw away all our time and effort so easily? Personally, if I were PM facing annihilation in the next election, I would rather put it off for as long as possible. In the long run, there are a lot of people who need the dental plan and if it provides more access to dental care, it will save money for healthcare.

By the environment, we face a situation where most Canadians do not understand what the greenhouse effect is going to have on our future generations. That is a criminal indictment on the education system. When you hear otherwise intelligent people more worried about today's economy than the devestation coming down on our future generations, it makes you weep at how ignorant and greedy we are. 

Homo Sapiens are a rare species of animal that is able to see far into the future and has the ability to adjust our behaviour to prevent our actions from causing catastrophe. Yet, we are too selfish to do anything about it. 

Compared to the coming tsunami of disaster presented by global warming, our economy and defence issues are totally insignificant.

We are asking the taxpayers to spend their money on a defence force that is unlikely to make any difference. If the Americans invade us, is the Canadian Armed Forces going to be able to repell them? 

If the Russians attack a NATO country, are we going to have the nuclear weapons to Destory them? Same question with China? Anyone who believes a war between NATO and Russia will not go nuclear with in days of the first engagement is niave.

Edited April 17 by Queenmandy85

[Aristides]

1 hour ago, Queenmandy85 said:

During the onslaught of the Covid pandemic, it was essential to,in the words of Conservative Premier Higgs, "Stay the blazes home." The stringent measures enacted by the provincial and federal governments cost a lot of money, but they saved tens of thousands of lives. Time was critical. The close co-ordination of provinces and the federal governments resulted in better outcomes than nations who failed to take it seriously.

Housing is a more important issue for many Canadians than defence.

The dental plan is an issue that the NDP required in exchange for their support. For the government to toss that support would be suicide. It has bought time for the government. It is easy for us to say tell them to step over the cliff, but would you or I just throw away all our time and effort so easily? Personally, if I were PM facing annihilation in the next election, I would rather put it off for as long as possible. In the long run, there are a lot of people who need the dental plan and if it provides more access to dental care, it will save money for healthcare.

By the environment, we face a situation where most Canadians do not understand what the greenhouse effect is going to have on our future generations. That is a criminal indictment on the education system. When you hear otherwise intelligent people more worried about today's economy than the devestation coming down on our future generations, it makes you weep at how ignorant and greedy we are. 

Homo Sapiens are a rare species of animal that is able to see far into the future and has the ability to adjust our behaviour to prevent our actions from causing catastrophe. Yet, we are too selfish to do anything about it. 

Compared to the coming tsunami of disaster presented by global warming, our economy and defence issues are totally insignificant.

We are asking the taxpayers to spend their money on a defence force that is unlikely to make any difference. If the Americans invade us, is the Canadian Armed Forces going to be able to repell them? 

If the Russians attack a NATO country, are we going to have the nuclear weapons to Destory them? Same question with China? Anyone who believes a war between NATO and Russia will not go nuclear with in days of the first engagement is niave.

Russia won't go to war with a strong NATO. A weak NATO is a reason Putin felt he could throw the dice in Ukraine and get away with it.

Wars are a lot more expensive than keeping a strong peacetime military and without peace, all your new social programs (funded on debt) won't be possible.

[Queenmandy85]

1 minute ago, Aristides said:

Russia won't go to war with a strong NATO. A weak NATO is a reason Putin felt he could throw the dice in Ukraine and get away with it.

Wars are a lot more expensive than keeping a strong peacetime military and without peace, all your new social programs (funded on debt) won't be possible.

NATO will no longer have the US as a reliable partner after President Trump moves back into the Oval Office. Russia will be be sorely tempted to recover the former Warsaw Pact slave states. Ukraine has been a valuable lesson for the Russian military. They ignored the  doctrine established by the Soviets of opening an offensive with an overwhelming artillery barrage because they miscalculated and failed to use sufficient force.

On the unlikely scenario where the Russian army does not include nuclear artillery, they will hit NATO with everything they have in their conventional arsenal. They will have replenished their tanks lost in Ukraine.

Scenario 1.  If they break through, how do you imagine France will react when the Russians are advancing on the Rhine in force? French and British forces will nuke the bejeezus out of the Russians.

Scenario 2. If the Russians get bogged down in the German killing zones and suffer heavy losses, they will not have the conventional forces left to stop a counter attack and subsequent invasion of Russia. What do you think they will do? Nuke the bejeezus out of NATO (including the US.)

There are other scenarios but they all result in the same conclusion.

Which ever scenario you choose, it will result in an all out strategic nuclear exchange. The Canadian Forces will have no impact on the result.

[I am Groot]

6 hours ago, Queenmandy85 said:

Compared to the coming tsunami of disaster presented by global warming, our economy and defence issues are totally insignificant.

First, according to the UN, which measures the damage potentially caused by global warming by economic losses, Canada's GDP could drop - or rise - by 1% or so by 2100, Not exactly a crisis. Second, there's nothing we can do to stop global warming. Third, that measure of us and other more northerly first world countries is based on how organized and wealthy we are, on our ability to deal with the impact of things like flooding and droughts. That takes a strong economy.

Finally, if you're speculating that global warming could lead to a crisis in Canada, then it would be a good idea if we had a reasonably sized, well equipped military in order to handle the security issues, would it not? Lest we fall into chaos and disorder?  

6 hours ago, Queenmandy85 said:

We are asking the taxpayers to spend their money on a defence force that is unlikely to make any difference.

In what? You're asking us to spend untold billions, hundreds of billions on climate change initiatives we know will make absolutely no difference. 

An army is used to deter attacks, to respond to emergencies like earthquakes and floods, and to control civil disorder. You're saying none of that is going to be of any value in the next hundred years?

 

[Queenmandy85]

16 hours ago, I am Groot said:

An army is used to deter attacks, to respond to emergencies like earthquakes and floods, and to control civil disorder. You're saying none of that is going to be of any value in the next hundred years?

F-35's and Leopard II tanks are no help in emergencies like earthquakes and floods. We do not use the military for civil disorder. We have police for that. If the US ever does invade, is conventional resistance worth the death toll? I suspect we would resign ourselves to it. If there is a Russian attack against NATO, it will result in a general nuclear exchange. F-35's and tanks would be irrelevant. It is NATO's nuclear weapons that deter Russia, not conventional forces. Ironically, a build up of NATO's conventional forces weakens deterrence, but signalling an attack on NATO would be answered conventionally. Deterrence relies on the guarantee that crossing the frontier would result in total nuclear destruction. 

 

16 hours ago, I am Groot said:

You're asking us to spend untold billions, hundreds of billions on climate change initiatives we know will make absolutely no difference. 

That is incorrect, What we are doing now will affect the global population in about two centuries. That was the estimate in the 1970s (250 years) and it hasn't changed. It has only been confirmed. We are almost out of time now. We can mitigate it by converting to nuclear power. We have enough uranium for 200 years, by which time, we will have replaced it with thorium fueled reactors. That only works if we have the petroleum to lubbricate the generators and the steel to build them. Petroleum, coal and iron are the three pillars of technological civilization. Burning oil and coal for energy is a total waste. These resourses belong to future generations who will rely on them to survive. 

HomoSapiens have only been here for a couple of hundred thousand years. That is only a third of the species life expectancy. Our cousins, Homo Erectus, was around for one and a half million years. You would think we are smarter than they are.

[Aristides]

11 minutes ago, Queenmandy85 said:

F-35's and Leopard II tanks are no help in emergencies like earthquakes and floods. We do not use the military for civil disorder. We have police for that. If the US ever does invade, is conventional resistance worth the death toll? I suspect we would resign ourselves to it. If there is a Russian attack against NATO, it will result in a general nuclear exchange. F-35's and tanks would be irrelevant. It is NATO's nuclear weapons that deter Russia, not conventional forces. Ironically, a build up of NATO's conventional forces weakens deterrence, but signalling an attack on NATO would be answered conventionally. Deterrence relies on the guarantee that crossing the frontier would result in total nuclear destruction. 

 

If you are weak in conventional forces, your only option if attacked becomes nuclear weapons and mutual destruction. Why would an aggressor resort to nukes and mutual destruction if they can achieve their goals with conventional forces? You have it backwards.

Quote

HomoSapiens have only been here for a couple of hundred thousand years. That is only a third of the species life expectancy. Our cousins, Homo Erectus, was around for one and a half million years. You would think we are smarter than they are.

They didn't have the ability to wipe out their species in the course of an afternoon.

Edited April 18 by Aristides

[Queenmandy85]

In 1971, I wrote a paper on the decline of the Canadian Forces for a History paper. What surprised me was that it was nothing new. With the coming war with Nazi Germany, in the late 1930's, we had a total military force of 4500. We had three ships. The flagship had warped forward guns. In late August 1939, there were large anti war protests in Vancouver. When war came, and conscrition was finally introduced, conscripts (zombies) were promised they would not have to serve overseas. 60,000 conscripts did not volunteer to serve overseas. In 1944, the government reversed that policy because the CAF in Europe were very short handed. The garrison in Terrace BC, made up of mostly Saskatchewan zombies, mutinied. The took over the town and held it for a week.

I have campaigned for a viable military force for Canada since 1971. Nobody listens. No politician, and nobody on this forum is in favour of Canada having a defence capability to act independently of allies in defence of Canada. They whine that is it too expensive and we don't have the population. Well, Bucko, we have the same population as Ukraine. In 1945 we had a million people in the CAF, one of the largest navies and air forces with one third of our population. Rather than a large conventional force, I say we need a large nuclear force.

But, as soon as the war was over, we reverted to neglecting our defence. I am tired of it. A few months ago,I had a revelation that, with the exception of World War Two, no major war in the last thousand years has actually accomplished anything good. Most of them could have been settled at the conference table without all the killing. Military history is very interesting, as long as you don't think about all the people who died. 

We have several members of this forum, such as Army Guy and Doug and others who have served our country and who deserve tremendous respect. 

Edited April 18 by Queenmandy85

[Queenmandy85]

39 minutes ago, Aristides said:

If you are weak in conventional forces, your only option if attacked becomes nuclear weapons and mutual destruction. Why would an aggressor resort to nukes and mutual destruction if they can achieve their goals with conventional forces? You have it backwards.

That is the point, Step over the line, and you are going to die. No question. You will die. Your family will die. Your country will be unihabitable for thousands of years. Are you sure that is what you want? Think carefully. If you and your little tank cross into Poland, by the time you have gone 10 km, you will be part of a radioactive cloud of ash drifting back home to Moscow where you can join the radioactive cloud of ashes tha used to be Putin. Whether your goal is Paris or a pub 5 metres across the border, you are dead. 

That is deterrence.

[Army Guy]

2 hours ago, Queenmandy85 said:

That is the point, Step over the line, and you are going to die. No question. You will die. Your family will die. Your country will be unihabitable for thousands of years. Are you sure that is what you want? Think carefully. If you and your little tank cross into Poland, by the time you have gone 10 km, you will be part of a radioactive cloud of ash drifting back home to Moscow where you can join the radioactive cloud of ashes tha used to be Putin. Whether your goal is Paris or a pub 5 metres across the border, you are dead. 

That is deterrence.

That is not deterrence that is a nightmare scenario, that ends with the destruction of the globe, so you , your family, and everyone of your country men and women, will be turned into nothing more than radioactive dust...and if your one of the unlucky ones that survive in some bunker or hole in some mountain, you'll emerge after your food runs out to find that everything on the surface is radioactive, you can't grow anything, or eat anything, they'll die of radiation poisoning,or starve to death... both are very painful deaths...

Your conventional forces stand toe to toe with our nation's enemies, in all of their history they have never backed down they have never failed to stand for your freedom, they have always answer your calls for help...now i could right a book on how many times average Canadians have let their military down, how they have failed to answer their calls for help...just something to think about...

There is much more than have a conventional force for just armed conflict, it brings you a seat at the table, UN, NATO, NORAD, 5 EYES, etc etc... which global decisions are being made, it gives your country a voice on the world stage, it brings in huge economical benefits, it also brings in technology trade offs, that also benefit our economy, it also allows our nation to assist our nations with disasters, or other crises, it allows us to be part of defensive agreements that protect others that can not do it for themselves...

Canadians don't understand what exactly our military does...That's why they can not make a informed decision on any military matter...people don't like stuff they don't understand...and we as a people are to lazy to do some research on our military...Military is going to start playing more of a role in climate change, being it from fighting forest fires or evacing people out of their way..." maybe Air Canada can take over that part"  and when the artic does open up it will be our military that patrols , enforcing our sovereignty  and laws...  

That everyone seems to think is a drag on our economy...yes there is a huge investment that needs to be made...you put men and women to work, 50,000 reg force another 20-30 reserve force, then approx another 20 -30,000 civilians that work directly for DND...and we have not counted how many civilians are employed in our defense sector, making stuff for our military....all of them are paying taxes...

Everyone and their dog has told anyone that will listen, "Our nation's military is on life support"...and if nothing is done urgently it will collapse...The current liberal budget does nothing to stop any of that .....today experienced soldiers are giving our Government and Canadians the middle finger...they have had enough abuse .....and leaving the only job they loved...because we the people are content to watch our military die a slow and painful death, thinking that man buns and purple hair is going to make a difference all it has done has turned it into a circus...... and now they are recruiting people with long term medical issues, that were once deemed unfit for military duty...Thats where we are right now....

[Dougie93]

On 4/15/2024 at 5:06 PM, Queenmandy85 said:

That has always worked for me, but I sometimes get a sense that the Conservative prime directive of God, King and Country is no longer resonant. Perhaps, you and I are the only Conservatives left. We live in a world of liberals, republicans and bolsheviks.

Regiment, Colours, Commander-in-Chief

from the Heights of Queenston to Hill One Four Five at Pas de Calais

Canada Bereft broods over the fallen

Cuidich 'n Righ

[Dougie93]

1 hour ago, Army Guy said:

Thats where we are right now....

Pipe Major, sound the lament