Open military to non citizens?


justlooking
+2
#91
Quote: Originally Posted by Twin_Moose View Post

Billions of dollars being donated overseas immediately following the budget announcement, isn't this money better spent in Canada?


What ?


That's just racist man, wtf are you doing ?
 
Hoid
#92
Like there's no real explanation for climate change?
 
White_Unifier
#93
Quote: Originally Posted by Tecumsehsbones View Post

What level of tax increase would you support for Canada to increase NATO funding (assuming that, as a conservative, you support balanced budgets)?

In the alternative, what programs would you cut or eliminate?

Firstly, the Canadian armed forces should improve efficiency. Though I'm not a member of the Armed Forces, I do interact with members of the armed forces across Canada mostly by phone and sometimes by e-mail in my work in the private sector. I can say that one thing they must spend lots of money on is translation and interpretation between English and French.

I don't know this for a fact, but given the language barriers I've come across between English and French Canadian soldiers, it wouldn't surprise me. Though it is possible that they actually keep those costs down considerably by trying as best they can to keep the English and French branches separate. But as one force, they will always need to have interaction between the two groups on some level.

Once we add to that translation and interpretation costs and inefficiencies caused by misunderstanding between NATO forces, I would imagine that NATO administration probably spends much money on translation and interpretation too.

Again, we could keep costs down by always keeping our forces separate, but then that limits our military capabilities when most NATO troops don't even share a common language.

Beyond that, I think creating an international police force (IPF) with a maximum of 100,000 well trained and equipped men who would all have to know an easy-to-learn common language like Esperanto could probably save tremendously on administrative costs too. Beyond that, it would provide a fully bilingual force with a common language and each soldier knowing one of many different second languages. This would make it a far more effective force in its ability to communicate with locals and others in times of conflict.

Before we increase spending, why not seek out efficiencies first.
 
Hoid
#94
But getting back to the OP Upper Canada was basically populated by ex Royal service men, many of whom were plucked from Scotland and Ireland, served the King, and were rewarded with lands.

The ancient ballad Lowlands of Holland is all about this.
 
Twin_Moose
Conservative
#95
Quote: Originally Posted by Hoid View Post

Like there's no real explanation for climate change?

There has been Trillions of dollars spent on this problem has there been any changes in climate? Can the climate be changed if Trillions more are spent on it? 100% consensus by all "peoplekind" Death, Taxes, and Climate changes!
 
Curious Cdn
Conservative
+1
#96
The Surface Combattant bidding process for the Navy is (hopefully) finally near completion after well over a decade of blundering incompetence. These are the replacement ships for the Patrol Frigates in service now and the recently paid off Iroquois class Guided Missile Destroyers. The last series of bids were all rejected as the Navy specs for various features were not met. Three bidders are to re-submit this July and hopefully, the wheels will begin to turn.

I mention this because there will be 15 ships built for a total of around 45 billion dollars. If the Gliberal Government does what the previous government did, they will announce to signing of the contract with "See! See how much more we're spending on defence, now!" Without actually opening their purses and spending a nickel. The Conservatives did that several times : announcing bold, new Defence acquisitions but not really buying anything. In the end, they reduced total defence spending and did not increase it as per their verbal contract with our allies (and the voters).

If you think that I am singling out the Tories for criticism, we just launched an AOR (Replenishment ship) from the Davie Shipyard in Quebec City last November. It is a bold, new venture involving leasing a vessel from a private contractor (the Brits have similar auxilliaries in their fleet). The ship was fabricated from an ice hardened, double hull container ship hull that was built in Germany 7 years ago. It was totally gutted like a canoe and a whole new ship was built onto it. Well done! It was on time, on budget and a really good lease-to-own buy for the Canadian taxpayer. MV ASTERIX! It is in Hawaii right now on manoevers. The bad news, Liberal part is that Davie is not on their "approved" shipyard list, even though they have built and serviced a lot of our naval and Coast Guard vessels. This is for 100% partisan reasons (an Admiral was even fired for it) and the only two "Liberal APPROVED" shipyards are Irving in Halifax and Seaspan in Vancouver. So, instead of having Davie repeat the identical vessel a couple more time saving the taxpayer a billion bucks or two, we have to wait for the partisan Liberal Seaspan to build a different design to be delivered some time ... way off in the future. Nice bit of dough to distribute on the West Coast, though. If we'd stuck with Davie, the second AOR would be in the water late next year for a shitpile less money and the Navy would be times more operational.
Last edited by Curious Cdn; Jul 3rd, 2018 at 11:43 AM..
 
Twin_Moose
Conservative
#97
Quote:

Beyond that, I think creating an international police force (IPF) with a maximum of 100,000 well trained and equipped men who would all have to know an easy-to-learn common language like Esperanto could probably save tremendously on administrative costs too. Beyond that, it would provide a fully bilingual force with a common language and each soldier knowing one of many different second languages. This would make it a far more effective force in its ability to communicate with locals and others in times of conflict.

Do you mean like NAFTA?

Quote:

Before we increase spending, why not seek out efficiencies first.

And how does this help the consensus reached in the NAFTA 2% GDP spending minimum?
 
Hoid
#98
Quote: Originally Posted by Twin_Moose View Post

There has been Trillions of dollars spent on this problem

no there hasn't - but bless your heart.

this is exactly why we cannot take your word for whether something like social spending has been explained or not.
 
JLM
No Party Affiliation
#99
Quote: Originally Posted by Cliffy View Post

I would support the Canadian forces if they would stay home to defend Canada but not to go overseas as an adjunct to the Yankees and Brits. They should be used to help out with natural disasters at home and to defend our borders but this helping the Yankees bomb the hell out of Libya and Afghanistan is phuked up.

Good post Cliffy that I can fully agree with. There would be more use for them in domestic disasters anyway.
 
Twin_Moose
Conservative
+1
#100
Quote: Originally Posted by Curious Cdn View Post

The Surface Combattant bidding process for the Navy is (hopefully) finally near completion after well over a decade of blundering incompetence. These are the replacement ships for the Patrol Frigates in service now and the recently paid off Iroquois class Guided Missile Destroyers. The last series of bids were all rejected as the Navy specs for various features were not met. Three bidders are to re-submit this July and hopefully, the wheels will begin to turn.

I mention this because there will be 15 ships built for a total of around 45 billion dollars. If the Gliberal Government does what the previous government did, they will announce to signing of the contract with "See! See how much more we're spending on defence, now!" Without actually opening their purses and spending a nickel. The Conservatives did that several times : announcing bold, new Defence acquisitions but not really buying anything. In the end, they reduced total defence spending and did not increase it as per their verbal contract with our allies (and the voters).

If you think that I am singling out the Tories for criticism, we just launched an AOR (Replenishment ship) from the Davie Shipyard in Quebec City last November. It is a bold, new venture involving leasing a vessel from a private contractor (the Brits have similar auxilliaries in their fleet). The ship was fabricated from an ice hardened, double hull container ship hull that was built in Germany 7 years ago. It was totally gutted like a canoe and a whole new ship was built onto it. Well done! It was on time, on budget and a really good lease-to-own buy for the Canadian taxpayer. MV ASTERIX! It is in Hawaii right now on manoevers. The bad news, Liberal part is that Davie is not on their "approved" shipyard list, even though they have built and serviced a lot of our naval and Coast Guard vessels. This is for 100% partisan reasons (an Admiral was even fired for it) and the only two "Liberal APPROVED" shipyards are Irving in Halifax and Seaspan in Vancouver. So, instead of having Davie repeat the identical vessel a couple more time saving the taxpayer a billion bucks or two, we have to wait for the partisan Liberal Seaspan to build a different design to be delivered some time ... way off in the future. Nice bit of dough to distribute on the West Coast, though. If we'd stuck with Davie, the second AOR would be in the water late next year for a shitpile less money and the Navy would be times more operational.

I agree these innovated approaches should be embraced not admonished.
 
justlooking
#101
Quote: Originally Posted by JLM View Post

Good post Cliffy that I can fully agree with. There would be more use for them in domestic disasters anyway.


So then we should leave NATO.
 
Curious Cdn
Conservative
+1
#102
Quote: Originally Posted by Hoid View Post

But getting back to the OP Upper Canada was basically populated by ex Royal service men, many of whom were plucked from Scotland and Ireland, served the King, and were rewarded with lands.

The ancient ballad Lowlands of Holland is all about this.

That is only somewhat true of the settlement of Upper Canada. Most of the Loyalists were farmers, not fighters.

It is however true of French Canada. Each and every one of them are descended from soldiers. New France was a crown, military enterprise whereas New England and the Northwest were commercial ventures. The French actively discouraged the settlement of simple farmers for some time and they only allowed it when the viability of the colony was in question. The French marched into Canada. The Scotch-Irish and later the English traded and ploughed into Canada.
 
White_Unifier
#103
Quote: Originally Posted by Twin_Moose View Post

And how does this help the consensus reached in the NAFTA 2% GDP spending minimum?

So do we increase spending before we improve efficiencies or vice versa?
 
Hoid
#104
check out the founding of Talbotville. Brit veterans were paid off with Canadian lands right up to at least confederation if not beyond.
 
Twin_Moose
Conservative
#105
Quote: Originally Posted by Hoid View Post

no there hasn't - but bless your heart.

this is exactly why we cannot take your word for whether something like social spending has been explained or not.

The U.S. Gov. has spent over 1/10 a Trillion on it by themselves by 2013, How much has the world Governments spent on this issue? How much has industry spent on preparing, and implementing for the policies? The U.N. Green fund is suppose to have 100 Billion to help fight climate change in have not countries. So do you still feel my 1 Trillion estimate is still out of whack?

Analysis:
Quote:

Between '1993 to FY 2013 total US expenditures on climate change amount to more than $165 Billion. More than $35 Billion is identified as climate science.'

 
Curious Cdn
Conservative
#106
Quote: Originally Posted by Hoid View Post

check out the founding of Talbotville. Brit veterans were paid off with Canadian lands right up to at least confederation if not beyond.

I know a lot about the Talbot settlement. The Butler's Rangers veterans were a big part of the settlement on the Niagara Pennisula and the Eastern Townships too but still, most of the Loyalists were planters and farmers. When the Rideau Canal system was built later on, the area was intentionally populated with military veterans so that a defensive militia could be quicky assembled from the surrounding lands. This was actually a design element of what became the most expensive defensive system in the British Empire.
 
Twin_Moose
Conservative
#107
Quote: Originally Posted by White_Unifier View Post

So do we increase spending before we improve efficiencies or vice versa?

Both can be done Simultaneously
 
Hoid
#108
Quote: Originally Posted by Curious Cdn View Post

I know a lot about the Talbot settlement. The Butler's Rangers veterans were a big part of the settlement on the Niagara Pennisula and the Eastern Townships too but still, most of the Loyalists were planters and farmers. When the Rideau Canal system was built later on, the area was intentionally populated with military veterans so that a defensive militia could be quicky assembled from the surrounding lands. This was actually a design element of what became the most expensive defensive system in the British Empire.

this is the basic plan they followed everywhere to expand the empire. India was the same thing. (Australia was somewhat different)
 
Curious Cdn
Conservative
+1
#109
Quote: Originally Posted by Twin_Moose View Post

I agree these innovated approaches should be embraced not admonished.

MV Asterix is brilliant. It is the largest ship that our Navy has ever operated ... for the first time, double hulled against oil spills, for the first time, a supply ship that can operate in light ice and it is equipped with more ship handling gear than previous AORs.

http://youtu.be/BZgDTlMuJyk

She came in at $659 million but the two other AORs that will be built in Vancouver will cost us $2.1 billion EACH if they manage to come in on budget (REALLY big "if").

Ship contracts are like fighter plane maintenance contracts ... a way of distributing largesse to friendly ridings but come on! We can't afford to featherbed EVERY damned defence contract, anymore.
 
EagleSmack
#110
Quote: Originally Posted by Curious Cdn View Post

We did and it lasted for forty years. The Western Alliance ...the one that your demented POTUS is about to end, fought it together and won it ... for a time, anyway and hundreds of thousands of us were a part of it.

Canada in a forty year Naval Battle with the Soviet Union and you were in it. Wow. What was it like?
 
Curious Cdn
Conservative
#111
Quote: Originally Posted by EagleSmack View Post

Canada in a forty year Naval Battle with the Soviet Union and you were in it. Wow. What was it like?

Cold and noisy. Canada was also in a six year naval battle with Nazi Germany, before it. I wasn't in that one but it was cold, noisy and deadly.

What exactly IS your problem? You clearly have some sort of a screw loose to come on to a Canadian forum where we are discussing Canadian defence issues to lip off like a ten year old school yard bully? What the fukc is wrong with you?
 
EagleSmack
#112
Oh now you want a truce and to act normal?


Anyhow... what was it like to be in naval combat?
 
Curious Cdn
Conservative
#113
Quote: Originally Posted by EagleSmack View Post

Oh now you want a truce and to act normal?


Anyhow... what was it like to be in naval combat?

As I said, you have a screw loose.
 
EagleSmack
#114
You can't?
 
JLM
No Party Affiliation
#115
Quote: Originally Posted by justlooking View Post

So then we should leave NATO.

I can't say. If you told me how NATO benefits us I might be able to give a better answer. I'm not all that horny about us sticking our noses into other people's squabbles.

Quote: Originally Posted by Curious Cdn View Post

As I said, you have a screw loose.


That would be about the best sure sign of sanity that I can think of.

Quote: Originally Posted by Curious Cdn View Post

Cold and noisy. Canada was also in a six year naval battle with Nazi Germany, before it. I wasn't in that one but it was cold, noisy and deadly.

What exactly IS your problem? You clearly have some sort of a screw loose to come on to a Canadian forum where we are discussing Canadian defence issues to lip off like a ten year old school yard bully? What the fukc is wrong with you?

Lots of people are probably itching to ask you the same question.
 
Curious Cdn
Conservative
#116
Quote: Originally Posted by JLM View Post

I can't say. If you told me how NATO benefits us I might be able to give a better answer. I'm not all that horny about us sticking our noses into other people's squabbles.




That would be about the best sure sign of sanity that I can think of.



Lots of people are probably itching to ask you the same question.

Dim.

Dimmer.

Dimmest.
 
justlooking
+2
#117
Quote: Originally Posted by JLM View Post

I can't say. If you told me how NATO benefits us


Well, we get the security protection of the US at a big discount, so it would make sense for us

to be on good terms with them.


I mean we could step out of NATO, have zero military, and we still get the US security umbrella.
Except from them of course.



We have a history of coming and helping the West.


We still get to train some young men to be better men.



We get the extra bonus of watching Trump destroy and humiliate PM Selfie.
 
JLM
No Party Affiliation
#118
Quote: Originally Posted by Curious Cdn View Post

Dim.

Dimmer.

Dimmest.

Troll.

Troller.

Trollest.
 
Curious Cdn
Conservative
#119
Quote: Originally Posted by JLM View Post

Troll.

Troller.

Trollest.

Yup. A failure to contribute something to the conversation is trolling, alright.
 
JLM
No Party Affiliation
#120
Quote: Originally Posted by justlooking View Post

Well, we get the security protection of the US at a big discount, so it would make sense for us

to be on good terms with them.


I mean we could step out of NATO, have zero military, and we still get the US security umbrella.
Except from them of course.



We have a history of coming and helping the West.


We still get to train some young men to be better men.



We get the extra bonus of watching Trump destroy and humiliate PM Selfie.


Would NATO be playing any part in our troops going to Mali? Brain dead f**king move if there ever was one!