Open military to non citizens?


White_Unifier
#31
Quote: Originally Posted by taxslave View Post



Made in Canada ones provide jobs. And votes.


No sympathy for the US taxpayer who pays for them?
 
DaSleeper
#32
Quote: Originally Posted by White_Unifier View Post

How does their sex relate to this? Let's say they'd been women sticking a Koran up their crotch, how would that have been any different?

Back on topic: the US, British, French, and other armed forces accept foreign recruits. Correct me if I'm wrong, but their forces seem to be doing just fine.

I thought only Waldo never posted links..............


https://www.storypick.com/armed-forc...eign-citizens/
 
Bar Sinister
No Party Affiliation
#33
There are multiple reasons for not wanting a military career. First, it pays poorly and opportunities for advancement are limited due to a system of promotion strongly based on seniority. Second it has shown itself to be intolerant of minorities and women. And Third, there is a chance you'll suffer bodily harm in which case the government will ignore you and deny you benefits.
 
White_Unifier
#34
Quote: Originally Posted by Bar Sinister View Post

There are multiple reasons for not wanting a military career. First, it pays poorly and opportunities for advancement are limited due to a system of promotion strongly based on seniority. Second it has shown itself to be intolerant of minorities and women. And Third, there is a chance you'll suffer bodily harm in which case the government will ignore you and deny you benefits.

A force that accepts foreign nationals would likely tend more towards openness of other nationalities than one that doesn't, at least relatively speaking.

Also, even if you're not physically injured, killing people must certainly have an impact on the mind. Except when the situation is crystal clear, you'd always be second-guessing yourself wondering if you had to kill that person of if you had an alternative option.
 
Hoid
#35
A very small percentage of military members ever see combat let alone kill anyone.

They are mostly reservists with little time in, making them cheap and easy to replace.

You will find the reserve is where they are really hurting for people.
 
Retired_Can_Soldier
+5
#36
Okay, let's break this down.


Quote: Originally Posted by Bar Sinister View Post

There are multiple reasons for not wanting a military career. First, it pays poorly and opportunities for advancement are limited due to a system of promotion strongly based on seniority.

You are right that the pay isn't the best, given the mission. Especially if you are a combat arms soldier, as I was. The infantry, artillery, armored, and engineers don't make that much money. On the second part of the above statement you are wrong. Now, in the odd case there are people who get promoted for political reasons. But seniority? Seniority doesn't play a role in promotion. The bulk of service people who get promoted because they show or have leadership qualities. I went from a no-hook gunner to a detachment commander in three years. This didn't happen because I had seniority, it happened because I showed leadership traits and my superiors saw fit to put me in training that tested and improved those traits. Seniority is a union thing, not a military thing. Promotion is afforded through hard work and the ability to advance your knowledge.



Quote:

Second it has shown itself to be intolerant of minorities and women.

I love this one. I served with the first two female combat soldiers in Canada's army back in 1989 and remain friends with both today. When they came on board, there was skepticism, but before long they were adopted and part of the, for lack of a better word, brotherhood, in a very short time. I also served with a Fernandez, Sharma, Singh and a bunch of others who might fit into your limited view of intolerance. Here's something you might want to consider when developing your opinions. It was passed on to me by a regimental sergeant major. When a guy who works at the Royal Bank does something stupid, like says something racist or gets an impaired charge, it reflects on him. The general public doesn't say, "Oh look at that, the Royal Bank employees are at it again!" In the case of a soldier, or even a handful of soldiers, a broad brush of judgment is applied to all. The incident in Somalia is a fine example of how everyone gets tarred and feathered by the actions of a few idiots. When Master Corporal Mache and Private Kyle Brown killed that Somali kid they had in custody, we all bore the brunt of that. Every soldier in my combat unit that I knew was disgusted by what they did and didn't buy Kyle Brown's version of events. Being that he was a victim and was scared and following orders. Bullshit. He had a choice. He chose to involve himself in a murder.



Quote:

And Third, there is a chance you'll suffer bodily harm in which case the government will ignore you and deny you benefits.

On this you are absolutely correct. That's the deal with the military. It's objective is national defense and it is works with both Nato and the UN. I've lost friends, seen people injured and was medically released after sustaining injuries to my legs over the course of my career. I spent the first five years I was out fighting veterans affairs and never got compensation or treatment for my injuries. Eventually, after dusting myself off, I decided that my mental health and my family was more important than the very public battle I fought with a tone deaf bureaucracy.


But this problem is as much the fault of the Canadian public as it is the Government of Canada. Canadians love to put stickers and license plates on their cars or wear poppies on Remembrance Day, but that is all they do. Canadians have the ability to change this, but choose to shake their heads then forget about it.



Anyway, that is all I've got to say.
Last edited by Retired_Can_Soldier; May 27th, 2018 at 09:09 AM..
 
Tecumsehsbones
+1
#37
I'm real sorry you got treated like that, RCS.

Do you have the faintest idea how much admiration I have for the way you rose above it and pressed on?
 
Retired_Can_Soldier
#38
Quote: Originally Posted by Tecumsehsbones View Post

I'm real sorry you got treated like that, RCS.

Do you have the faintest idea how much admiration I have for the way you rose above it and pressed on?


Thanks. Beat putting a gun in my mouth.
 
Curious Cdn
No Party Affiliation
+2
#39
The tradition of promoting competence and "uptraining" ranks (corporals to perform as sergeants, etc.) Is a hundred years old in the Canadian army and it goes straight back to Aurthur Currie's Canadian Corps at Vimy. The flexibility and adaptability of the rank structure is a hallmark of our army. We have some of the best soldiers on the planet in our forces, just not nearly enough of them.

By the way, recruiting foreigners is nothing new. Early in WWII, thousands of Americans came up here to enlist in our forces. Conversly, aproxximately 20,000 Canadians want south to enlist there during the Vietnam war. The British have their Ghurka Rifles, the French still have their Foreign Legion. It's not a new concept.
 
Bar Sinister
No Party Affiliation
#40
Quote: Originally Posted by Retired_Can_Soldier View Post

Okay, let's break this down.


You are right that the pay isn't the best, given the mission. Especially if you are a combat arms soldier, as I was. The infantry, artillery, armored, and engineers don't make that much money. On the second part of the above statement you are wrong. Now, in the odd case there are people who get promoted for political reasons. But seniority? Seniority doesn't play a role in promotion. The bulk of service people who get promoted because they show or have leadership qualities. I went from a no-hook gunner to a detachment commander in three years. This didn't happen because I had seniority, it happened because I showed leadership traits and my superiors saw fit to put me in training that tested and improved those traits. Seniority is a union thing, not a military thing. Promotion is afforded through hard work and the ability to advance your knowledge.



I love this one. I served with the first two female combat soldiers in Canada's army back in 1989 and remain friends with both today. When they came on board, there was skepticism, but before long they were adopted and part of the, for lack of a better word, brotherhood, in a very short time. I also served with a Fernandez, Sharma, Singh and a bunch of others who might fit into your limited view of intolerance. Here's something you might want to consider when developing your opinions. It was passed on to me by a regimental sergeant major. When a guy who works at the Royal Bank does something stupid, like says something racist or gets an impaired charge, it reflects on him. The general public doesn't say, "Oh look at that, the Royal Bank employees are at it again!" In the case of a soldier, or even a handful of soldiers, a broad brush of judgment is applied to all. The incident in Somalia is a fine example of how everyone gets tarred and feathered by the actions of a few idiots. When Master Corporal Mache and Private Kyle Brown killed that Somali kid they had in custody, we all bore the brunt of that. Every soldier in my combat unit that I knew was disgusted by what they did and didn't buy Kyle Brown's version of events. Being that he was a victim and was scared and following orders. Bullshit. He had a choice. He chose to involve himself in a murder.



On this you are absolutely correct. That's the deal with the military. It's objective is national defense and it is works with both Nato and the UN. I've lost friends, seen people injured and was medically released after sustaining injuries to my legs over the course of my career. I spent the first five years I was out fighting veterans affairs and never got compensation or treatment for my injuries. Eventually, after dusting myself off, I decided that my mental health and my family was more important than the very public battle I fought with a tone deaf bureaucracy.


But this problem is as much the fault of the Canadian public as it is the Government of Canada. Canadians love to put stickers and license plates on their cars or wear poppies on Remembrance Day, but that is all they do. Canadians have the ability to change this, but choose to shake their heads then forget about it.



Anyway, that is all I've got to say.


Recent news reports do not jive with your beliefs. There are dozens of online reports from a variety of sources describing problems of discrimination and the current military is so top heavy with officers that the promotion queue is being held up all down the line.
 
Retired_Can_Soldier
+2
#41
Quote: Originally Posted by Bar Sinister View Post

Recent news reports do not jive with your beliefs. There are dozens of online reports from a variety of sources describing problems of discrimination and the current military is so top heavy with officers that the promotion queue is being held up all down the line.


You mean, the recent news reports are interpreted by you (who is obviously poorly educated about our military) feed into your preconceived notions of racism and discrimination.

By the way, top heavy has bugger all to do with seniority. We don't promote people on seniority. We promote them on ability. The military has its fair share of 20-year corporals and career captains. We have a merit list based on a Personal Evaluation Report. That is how you're promoted.

On some points I agreed with you. Unfortunately, you're too narrow minded to concede that you might be wrong about some things.
 
Curious Cdn
No Party Affiliation
#42
A "top heavy" Forces is a symptom of how undermanned the Forces really are. Think of it as the infrastructure, the framework unto which you add new recruits and call ups from various levels of the Permanent Reserve List during a time of national emergency (and no, we've have NOT seen the last one of those).

I've been interested in these matters since the 1970s and it is the perennial state of the CAF appear to have "too many chiefs and not enough indians" but all of that time, what you have seen is a skilled and knowledgable skeleton of a potentially effective force in place. Just add some inexperienced hands.
 
Retired_Can_Soldier
#43
Quote: Originally Posted by Curious Cdn View Post

A "top heavy" Forces is a symptom of how undermanned the Forces really are. Think of it as the infrastructure, the framework unto which you add new recruits and call ups from various levels of the Permanent Reserve List during a time of national emergency (and no, we've have NOT seen the last one of those).

I've been interested in these matters since the 1970s and it is the perennial state of the CAF appear to have "too many chiefs and not enough indians" but all of that time, what you have seen is a skilled and knowledgable skeleton of a potentially effective force in place. Just add some inexperienced hands.

The fact is, many senior officers and NCO's are taking extensions to bolster their pension. The armed forces is undermanned, due in part to soldiers returning from theater and deciding they don't want to live as a peace time as soldiers. I know that will freak out all the namby pamby's, but it's very tough to adjust to garrison living after fighting in combat. To have someone telling you that your new mission is picking up gum wrappers in a sweep or doing a training mission when you've done the real thing.

Sometimes it's just easier to cut the umbilical cord.

Especially for a young man or woman.
 
Johnnny
No Party Affiliation
#44
Doesn't the Military have an effective office that is supposed to assist in that transition?
 
Curious Cdn
No Party Affiliation
#45
Quote: Originally Posted by Retired_Can_Soldier View Post

The fact is, many senior officers and NCO's are taking extensions to bolster their pension. The armed forces is undermanned, due in part to soldiers returning from theater and deciding they don't want to live as a peace time as soldiers. I know that will freak out all the namby pamby's, but it's very tough to adjust to garrison living after fighting in combat. To have someone telling you that your new mission is picking up gum wrappers in a sweep or doing a training mission when you've done the real thing.

Sometimes it's just easier to cut the umbilical cord.

Especially for a young man or woman.

That is beyond my experience.

Our forces were in the same state between the World Wars. They were depleted into vitual uselessness but the basic framework for rapid re-expansion was there. It's the most that we can hope for from an ignorant, complacent Canadian public with increasingly dangerous and unstable world lying ahead.
 
Retired_Can_Soldier
#46
Quote: Originally Posted by Johnnny View Post

Doesn't the Military have an effective office that is supposed to assist in that transition?


They do and they don't. They do have decompression after war, but being a combat soldier revert back to peacetime is a tricky bit of business with a thousand variables, not excluding PTSD.


Quote: Originally Posted by Curious Cdn View Post

That is beyond my experience.

Our forces were in the same state between the World Wars. They were depleted into vitual uselessness but the basic framework for rapid re-expansion was there. It's the most that we can hope for from an ignorant, complacent Canadian public with increasingly dangerous and unstable world lying ahead.


I felt it in the 80's and 90's as well.
 
Curious Cdn
No Party Affiliation
#47
Quote: Originally Posted by Retired_Can_Soldier View Post


I felt it in the 80's and 90's as well.

I'm not going to live long enough to see a lot of the bad stuff that is coming. Within this century, rising sea levels are going to displace billions who live right at sea level. Almost all of Bangladesh will disappear, for example ... 200 million moving to ... where? The chain reactions of huge populations on the move around the globe WILL touch us. There is a hint that the process has already started due to other environmental and political pressures. We can't hide, here.
 
Hoid
#48
Quote: Originally Posted by Curious Cdn View Post

That is beyond my experience.

Our forces were in the same state between the World Wars. They were depleted into vitual uselessness but the basic framework for rapid re-expansion was there. It's the most that we can hope for from an ignorant, complacent Canadian public with increasingly dangerous and unstable world lying ahead.

Germany even more so. They kept the leadership intact and that allowed them to spool it up once they got the chance.

The opposite was Cold War Canada where the Rcaf maintained a peacetime strength of 120,000 plus.

The eventual force reductions were mandatory.
 
Curious Cdn
No Party Affiliation
#49
Quote: Originally Posted by Hoid View Post

Germany even more so. They kept the leadership intact and that allowed them to spool it up once they got the chance.

The opposite was Cold War Canada where the Rcaf maintained a peacetime strength of 120,000 plus.

The eventual force reductions were mandatory.

All three regular forces added up to 120,000 when I was a little kid. That 120,000 man RCAF that you talk of must have been during the last half of the 1940s, if it ever was at all.
 
Bar Sinister
No Party Affiliation
#50
Quote: Originally Posted by Curious Cdn View Post

All three regular forces added up to 120,000 when I was a little kid. That 120,000 man RCAF that you talk of must have been during the last half of the 1940s, if it ever was at all.


The RCAF reached a strength of about 215,000 by the end of World War II, but was rapidly disbanded after that event. By 1948 it numbered only 12,000.

Royal Canadian Air Force

Royal Canadian Air Force - The Canadian Encyclopedia
 
Hoid
#51
you should have read further in your link. the Hellyer reduction were a matter of necessity.

they have since turned into something Trudeau did out of spite - because righties need to think that
 
Curious Cdn
No Party Affiliation
#52
Quote: Originally Posted by Bar Sinister View Post

The RCAF reached a strength of about 215,000 by the end of World War II, but was rapidly disbanded after that event. By 1948 it numbered only 12,000.

Royal Canadian Air Force

Royal Canadian Air Force - The Canadian Encyclopedia

Sounds about right. The numbers increased somewhat during and after Korea.

The old joke about the RCN is that we demobilized faster than the Kreigsmarine did. Canada was a small and not very rich country 70 years ago.
 
Hoid
#53
BY the time Eisenhower made his "military/industrial complex" speech the Canadian military was a massive money consuming sponge. It needed a massive trimming and it got one.

You do not need a massive military in peacetime. Especially foot soldiers.

You draft those as required.
 
spilledthebeer
+1
#54
Quote: Originally Posted by Hoid View Post

BY the time Eisenhower made his "military/industrial complex" speech the Canadian military was a massive money consuming sponge. It needed a massive trimming and it got one.

You do not need a massive military in peacetime. Especially foot soldiers.

You draft those as required.




What GARBAGE! HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!


In the modern war there will be NO time for a military buildup! If you need to fight- you will be forced to fight with what you have on hand! If it aint enough then tough!


And nobody wants to discuss how many casualties occurred during WW2 as allied forces came from behind with lousy tanks and desperate last ditch defenses!


AS for LIE-berals having trouble recruiting people for the Forces- that is a laugh!!!!! LIE-berals want to DESTROY the Cdn military and spend the gravy on themselves!


And the NDP is even worse! Members of their party refusing to wear a Poppy that in their twisted opinion somehow glorifies war!


And what of NDP support for terrorist groups fighting in Kashmir and Middle East? NDp leader Jagmeet Sigh even supports those who glorify the Air India bomber!



Our idiot Boy Justin could make all his NAFTA problems go away simply by taking national security issues more seriously- he is scaring the Yankees with his crap and is perilously close to getting the border closed to Cdn trade since Yankees do not want to import terrorist cells and organized crime along with their Cdn dairy and lumber products!







Time to up Canada’s defence spending

Postmedia Network

First posted: Monday, April 17, 2017 05:53 PM EDT | Updated: Monday, April 17, 2017 05:58 PM EDT

The world is becoming a more dangerous place.

Yet Canada’s defence spending is on the decline.

This doesn’t add up and it has to change.

The Senate committee on national security and defence last week released an alarming report revealing our defence spending is lower as a percentage of GDP than it’s ever been.

Under Prime Minister Justin Trudeau, we’re down to spending 0.88% of GDP.

The number's been declining ever since the 1960s, when it was 4%.

This is a problem because our commitment to NATO is that we’ll spend 2% on military matters.

Coincidentally, the Senate report came out the day after U.S. President Donald Trump walked back his past statements on NATO being obsolete and reiterated his calls for member countries to increase their military spending.

For a brief period, the world enjoyed calm in the post-Cold War era.

As the arms race between the United States and the Soviet Union drew to a close, it seemed the days of nuclear proliferation were behind us and liberal democracy would dominate the new world order.

That time was short-lived.

A little over a decade later, Osama bin Laden began planning for 9/11 and international terrorism kicked into high gear.

Meanwhile, countries like Iran and North Korea developed an appetite for nuclear weapons.

A new arms race, involving unstable regimes and even terrorist groups, has emerged.

Former U.S. president Barack Obama created a power vacuum in the geopolitical sphere when he failed in 2013 to enforce the “red line” he drew in Syria over its development and use of chemical weapons.

Trump is clearly barreling ahead to correct that mistake.

Recently, he dropped dozens of Tomahawk missiles in a targeted strike on a Syrian airfield.

And he dropped a MOAB (Mother of All Bombs), the largest non-nuclear weapon in the U.S. arsenal, on an ISIS fighting position in Afghanistan.

America is in fighting form again, ready to beat back the rising forces of evil in the world.

Canada will decide, case by case, which fights we will join the U.S. in prosecuting.

But if our defence spending continues to erode, we won’t be in shape to join any fight.

The time to increase our military spending is now.
 
Curious Cdn
No Party Affiliation
+1
#55
Quote: Originally Posted by spilledthebeer View Post

What GARBAGE! HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!


In the modern war there will be NO time for a military buildup! If you need to fight- you will be forced to fight with what you have on hand! If it aint enough then tough!


And nobody wants to discuss how many casualties occurred during WW2 as allied forces came from behind with lousy tanks and desperate last ditch defenses!


AS for LIE-berals having trouble recruiting people for the Forces- that is a laugh!!!!! LIE-berals want to DESTROY the Cdn military and spend the gravy on themselves!


And the NDP is even worse! Members of their party refusing to wear a Poppy that in their twisted opinion somehow glorifies war!


And what of NDP support for terrorist groups fighting in Kashmir and Middle East? NDp leader Jagmeet Sigh even supports those who glorify the Air India bomber!



Our idiot Boy Justin could make all his NAFTA problems go away simply by taking national security issues more seriously- he is scaring the Yankees with his crap and is perilously close to getting the border closed to Cdn trade since Yankees do not want to import terrorist cells and organized crime along with their Cdn dairy and lumber products!







Time to up Canada’s defence spending

Postmedia Network

First posted: Monday, April 17, 2017 05:53 PM EDT | Updated: Monday, April 17, 2017 05:58 PM EDT

The world is becoming a more dangerous place.

Yet Canada’s defence spending is on the decline.

This doesn’t add up and it has to change.

The Senate committee on national security and defence last week released an alarming report revealing our defence spending is lower as a percentage of GDP than it’s ever been.

Under Prime Minister Justin Trudeau, we’re down to spending 0.88% of GDP.

The number's been declining ever since the 1960s, when it was 4%.

This is a problem because our commitment to NATO is that we’ll spend 2% on military matters.

Coincidentally, the Senate report came out the day after U.S. President Donald Trump walked back his past statements on NATO being obsolete and reiterated his calls for member countries to increase their military spending.

For a brief period, the world enjoyed calm in the post-Cold War era.

As the arms race between the United States and the Soviet Union drew to a close, it seemed the days of nuclear proliferation were behind us and liberal democracy would dominate the new world order.

That time was short-lived.

A little over a decade later, Osama bin Laden began planning for 9/11 and international terrorism kicked into high gear.

Meanwhile, countries like Iran and North Korea developed an appetite for nuclear weapons.

A new arms race, involving unstable regimes and even terrorist groups, has emerged.

Former U.S. president Barack Obama created a power vacuum in the geopolitical sphere when he failed in 2013 to enforce the “red line” he drew in Syria over its development and use of chemical weapons.

Trump is clearly barreling ahead to correct that mistake.

Recently, he dropped dozens of Tomahawk missiles in a targeted strike on a Syrian airfield.

And he dropped a MOAB (Mother of All Bombs), the largest non-nuclear weapon in the U.S. arsenal, on an ISIS fighting position in Afghanistan.

America is in fighting form again, ready to beat back the rising forces of evil in the world.

Canada will decide, case by case, which fights we will join the U.S. in prosecuting.

But if our defence spending continues to erode, we won’t be in shape to join any fight.

The time to increase our military spending is now.

Arming ourselves to supplement US forces is by no means the whole story. They'll do just fine with or without us. This should be about fulfilling and defending Canadian needs.
 
Hoid
#56
Canada has not looked after its own needs.

Prior to world war two we were a colonial militia under British control fighting British wars.

After world war two we became what we are now, supporting whatever asshat action the Americans or NATO or the UN comes up with.

We should withdraw all our pers form foreign posts and bring them back here and keep them here until a war is declared by our own parliament.

But we are to afraid to just stand up on our own.
 
spilledthebeer
#57
Quote: Originally Posted by Hoid View Post

Canada has not looked after its own needs.

Prior to world war two we were a colonial militia under British control fighting British wars.

After world war two we became what we are now, supporting whatever asshat action the Americans or NATO or the UN comes up with.

We should withdraw all our pers form foreign posts and bring them back here and keep them here until a war is declared by our own parliament.

But we are to afraid to just stand up on our own.






And WHAT ARE THE MILITARY NEEDS OF CANADA? The LIE-berals among us WILL NOT SPEAK of that! They are far too busy tying themselves in knots- first trying to explain to Yankees why we are entitled to HIDE behind them!



Then LIE-berals seek to "assert" our sovereignty- over vast northern territories which are basically being patrolled by MODERN Yankee fighter jets- backed up by some worn out old Cdn machines!



Then LIE-berals want to sneer at the Yankees as misogynist gun nuts during NAFTA "negotiations which are little more than Our idiot Boy Justin and his pals sneering at Yankees while Yankees fret over the number of illegals swarming into Canada without so much as a BASIC security check- people working with kids at Boy Scouts get more security screening than those illegals!


LIE-berals been working hard to change the lyrics to Oh Canada- but what they DO NOT want to admit is that it is FBI that stands on guard for the Great White North! The biggest Muslim terror operations of the past couple of years were both thwarted by FBI!!!


I refer to the pair of Muslims scheming to derail a Via passenger train off the Highland Creek bridge and the death of Aaron Driver when he blew himself up in a taxi west of Toronto- as cops- tipped off by FBI in BOTH CASES- were closing in!


Hypocrite LIE-berals want to tell us that if war comes we WILL have time to build up our forces and that is a LIE!



LIE-berals do not want to discuss the embarrassment of Royal Cdn Navy as it moved into the computer age! Yeah- a brand new destroyer cruising out of Esquimalt for training exercises with its Aegis computer controlled weapons and the system came active, identified an enemy attacker and launched a missile at it!


And that RCN missile flew straight and true and struck the enemy squarely- and DESTROYED A GARAGE IN BURNABY!


Modern weapons have so many computer guided functions that a "foot solider" is no longer just a grunt- on a MODERN battlefield they MUST become COMPUTER CONTROLLED GRUNTS! And it takes TIME to integrate all that stuff and work out all the bugs- as the garage owner in Burnaby can attest!



LIE-berals want to pretend that training an infantry soldier is no more difficult than showing them how to hold the shovel they will use to dig the fox hole- and making sure they know which end the bullets come out of!


The next battlefield is likely to be hugely complex- with a massive array of both very sophisticated and weirdly simple weapons! Both Russia and China have recognized that numbers alone are NOT ENOUGH! Both countries are seeking Yankee style technical weapons- while other enemies such as Isis are using ultra primitive weapons such as drones!


A Cdn army that lacks the ability to shoot down incoming ballistic missiles AND lacks the ability to identify and shoot down cheap drones carrying hand grenades is IMPOTENT!


As for letting foreigners inot Cdn military......HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! !!!!!!!!!



I have no doubt we could get lots of foreigners into Cdn military! And just THINK of the wonderful and colourful military parades we could hold every July 1!!!!


Think of it- the bubbly announcer commenting on Lord Strathcona`s Horse Brigade! followed by the ISIS BRIGADE with its powerful voice in Cdn society!



Then the Hamas Brigade shouting "Death to Zionists and Jews"!


And then we could have a Hezbollah Brigade- though we should probably keep them separate from Hamas and the Peshmerga Bridage so they do not turn to fighting each other!



And we could get a Somali contingent into the Cdn navy REALLY CHEAPLY!!!! Just give them boats and weapons and they can high jack their own pay- though it might mean occasional interruptions in shipping along our coasts? Perhaps we could simply direct them to attack Yankee shipping since Our idiot Boy hates them anyway! And of course after Our idiot Boy provokes \Trump and gets the NAFTA job KILLED- we wont be doing any trade with Yankees anyway?



And as we know there ARE LOTS of Nigerians coming here as illegals and so we could quickly form a Nigerian brigade and would it not be fun to see them marching proudly in Ottawa- flinging Nigerian letter scams into the crowd in hope of augmenting their pay?



Oh yes- we COULD form a Cdn Foreign Legion literally in MINUTES- but I don't think we could rely on them!


HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!


SILLY LIE-BERALS!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
 
Twin_Moose
Conservative
#58
Armed with facts, Canada braces for another Trump tirade at NATO summit

Canada is looking to Trump-proof its arguments on a range of defence issues ahead of next month's NATO summit — but some experts wonder whether the Trudeau government's position will even register with the mercurial U.S. president.

Defence Minister Harjit Sajjan signalled the Liberal government is prepared to debate the orthodoxy of the western military alliance's non-binding spending targets at the upcoming NATO leaders summit in Brussels.
NATO asks its 29 members to spend the equivalent of two per cent of their gross domestic product on defence.
Canada has long been singled out as a laggard when it comes to meeting that target. Sajjan contends it's partly because the federal government is too bashful when it comes to what it describes as defence spending.
"We've been too Canadian in how we calculate our two per cent compared to other nations," Sajjan told CBC News in a recent interview.
"We're always too modest. When I looked at the calculation, I looked at how some nations add certain things that we haven't."


First Trudeau-Trump meeting since the G7 debacle

The remarks are significant in light of a recent letter U.S. President Donald Trump sent to all NATO capitals demanding members meet the alliance's defence spending targets.
Sajjan's comments come at a low point in Canada-U.S. relations. The working relationship between Prime Minister Justin Trudeau and Trump has turned frosty since the president started calling out Canada — and Trudeau himself — on social media and in highly emotive political rallies with supporters. The NATO summit is expected to be the first time the two leaders have met since the G7 in early June, where the U.S. president backed out of supporting the final communique and launched blistering personal attacks on Trudeau in response to the prime minister telling the international media that Canada would not be "pushed around" by the United States on trade.
The possibility of a repeat performance by Trump in Brussels has the Liberal government sharpening its previous arguments on defence spending.
"How the two per cent is calculated needs to be looked at," Sajjan said. "Now, we've done that and we look forward to talking more about that at the leader's summit."
As part of its recent defence policy , the Liberal government said Canada was not reporting certain expenses as defence spending — direct payments to veterans, defence procurement costs and bills not covered by the UN for peacekeeping operations, among other things.
The plan pledged to increase the defence budget to $32 billion per year by 2026-27. That boost still only brings Canada's defence spending to 1.4 per cent of GDP.
Sajjan has long argued the debate should not be about cash but rather "how you contribute to NATO" in terms of deployments — a position the former Conservative government also took when it was challenged on the issue.
He downplayed the suggestion that Canada was trying to tranquilize Trump with arguments about the structure of the two per cent target and burden-sharing.
"This is not about adding things on to appease somebody. This is about being effective together as NATO," he said. Using facts and citing this country's recent defence policy to head off a potential Trump tirade might not work, a trio of experts has concluded.
"Mr. Trump is probably unaware of the 'fully costed' spending projections in the 2017 Canadian defence policy statement, Strong, Secure, Engaged – and, even if he was, his mind is probably made up anyway," said Christian Leuprecht, Joel Sokolsky and Jayson Derow in a report written for the MacDonald-Laurier Institute, released Monday.

A political bonus for Trudeau?

They argue there could even be a domestic political upside for Trudeau in resisting American pressure to put more money than planned into defence.
"To be sure, the prime minister could surge defence spending, but it is not clear Trump would take notice, let alone be satisfied with whatever Canada could reasonably inject, especially given the federal government's highly fiscally constrained environment," said the report, which examines Canada's commitment to NATO's battle group in Latvia.
"To the contrary, the Prime Minister may well decide that Trump's recent imposition of tariffs on some Canadian goods and his disparaging ad hominem remarks gives him licence and domestic support to resist U.S. pressure to ramp up defence spending."
Other defence experts have for years argued the two per cent benchmark is a poor way to measure a nation's contribution to the NATO alliance.
The benchmark was conceived at the Prague Summit in 2002 as a mechanism for members to pay their fair share, and reaffirmed four years later when leaders met in Riga.
The basis of the Canadian argument is that the spending target focuses on "inputs rather than outputs."
Washington has signalled already that it is going into the upcoming summit with the goal of pushing the alliance to keep more forces combat-ready.
The proposal, known as the 'Four Thirties', demands that within two years NATO be able to deploy 30 battalions, 30 warships and 30 air squadrons within 30 days or less.
At the Riga summit in 2006, NATO leaders introduced a target of maintaining 40 per cent of NATO land forces to be deployable on a sustained basis. All alliance countries, with the exception of Denmark, keep their readiness statistics a secret.
Canada's top military commander, Gen. Jonathan Vance, recently described the Four Thirties concept as "a very interesting, useful proposal," but was uncertain of its impact on this country.

Like TB has been saying whatabout, whatabout lol
 
Curious Cdn
No Party Affiliation
+1
#59
Quote: Originally Posted by Twin_Moose View Post

Armed with facts, Canada braces for another Trump tirade at NATO summit

Canada is looking to Trump-proof its arguments on a range of defence issues ahead of next month's NATO summit — but some experts wonder whether the Trudeau government's position will even register with the mercurial U.S. president.

Defence Minister Harjit Sajjan signalled the Liberal government is prepared to debate the orthodoxy of the western military alliance's non-binding spending targets at the upcoming NATO leaders summit in Brussels.
NATO asks its 29 members to spend the equivalent of two per cent of their gross domestic product on defence.
Canada has long been singled out as a laggard when it comes to meeting that target. Sajjan contends it's partly because the federal government is too bashful when it comes to what it describes as defence spending.
"We've been too Canadian in how we calculate our two per cent compared to other nations," Sajjan told CBC News in a recent interview.
"We're always too modest. When I looked at the calculation, I looked at how some nations add certain things that we haven't."


First Trudeau-Trump meeting since the G7 debacle

The remarks are significant in light of a recent letter U.S. President Donald Trump sent to all NATO capitals demanding members meet the alliance's defence spending targets.
Sajjan's comments come at a low point in Canada-U.S. relations. The working relationship between Prime Minister Justin Trudeau and Trump has turned frosty since the president started calling out Canada — and Trudeau himself — on social media and in highly emotive political rallies with supporters. The NATO summit is expected to be the first time the two leaders have met since the G7 in early June, where the U.S. president backed out of supporting the final communique and launched blistering personal attacks on Trudeau in response to the prime minister telling the international media that Canada would not be "pushed around" by the United States on trade.
The possibility of a repeat performance by Trump in Brussels has the Liberal government sharpening its previous arguments on defence spending.
"How the two per cent is calculated needs to be looked at," Sajjan said. "Now, we've done that and we look forward to talking more about that at the leader's summit."
As part of its recent defence policy , the Liberal government said Canada was not reporting certain expenses as defence spending — direct payments to veterans, defence procurement costs and bills not covered by the UN for peacekeeping operations, among other things.
The plan pledged to increase the defence budget to $32 billion per year by 2026-27. That boost still only brings Canada's defence spending to 1.4 per cent of GDP.
Sajjan has long argued the debate should not be about cash but rather "how you contribute to NATO" in terms of deployments — a position the former Conservative government also took when it was challenged on the issue.
He downplayed the suggestion that Canada was trying to tranquilize Trump with arguments about the structure of the two per cent target and burden-sharing.
"This is not about adding things on to appease somebody. This is about being effective together as NATO," he said. Using facts and citing this country's recent defence policy to head off a potential Trump tirade might not work, a trio of experts has concluded.
"Mr. Trump is probably unaware of the 'fully costed' spending projections in the 2017 Canadian defence policy statement, Strong, Secure, Engaged – and, even if he was, his mind is probably made up anyway," said Christian Leuprecht, Joel Sokolsky and Jayson Derow in a report written for the MacDonald-Laurier Institute, released Monday.

A political bonus for Trudeau?

They argue there could even be a domestic political upside for Trudeau in resisting American pressure to put more money than planned into defence.
"To be sure, the prime minister could surge defence spending, but it is not clear Trump would take notice, let alone be satisfied with whatever Canada could reasonably inject, especially given the federal government's highly fiscally constrained environment," said the report, which examines Canada's commitment to NATO's battle group in Latvia.
"To the contrary, the Prime Minister may well decide that Trump's recent imposition of tariffs on some Canadian goods and his disparaging ad hominem remarks gives him licence and domestic support to resist U.S. pressure to ramp up defence spending."
Other defence experts have for years argued the two per cent benchmark is a poor way to measure a nation's contribution to the NATO alliance.
The benchmark was conceived at the Prague Summit in 2002 as a mechanism for members to pay their fair share, and reaffirmed four years later when leaders met in Riga.
The basis of the Canadian argument is that the spending target focuses on "inputs rather than outputs."
Washington has signalled already that it is going into the upcoming summit with the goal of pushing the alliance to keep more forces combat-ready.
The proposal, known as the 'Four Thirties', demands that within two years NATO be able to deploy 30 battalions, 30 warships and 30 air squadrons within 30 days or less.
At the Riga summit in 2006, NATO leaders introduced a target of maintaining 40 per cent of NATO land forces to be deployable on a sustained basis. All alliance countries, with the exception of Denmark, keep their readiness statistics a secret.
Canada's top military commander, Gen. Jonathan Vance, recently described the Four Thirties concept as "a very interesting, useful proposal," but was uncertain of its impact on this country.

Like TB has been saying whatabout, whatabout lol

We don't have a whole lot if excuses. We are essentially in abeyance of our obligations to the North Atlantic Treaty and we have been since Pierre Trudea's time. Subsequent governments have made the situation worse, not better. If we didn't occupy such a strategic place in the world (directly between Russia and the USA) they'd turf us out of the alliance for being cheapskate deadbeats.
 
Hoid
#60
On the other hand given our geography nobody is ever going to attack us, making any military we have more or less pointless.

We really don't need one - and since we only use ours to fulfill questionable international obligations we would probably do well to simply scrap our military for good.