Open military to non citizens?
- Thread starter Hoid
- Start date
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.
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:
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)
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.
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.
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?
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. :lol: :lol:
Lots of people are probably itching to ask you the same question. :lol: :lol:
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. :lol:
Would NATO be playing any part in our troops going to Mali? Brain dead f**king move if there ever was one!