NATO & the Trump Factor
- Thread starter Ocean Breeze
- Start date
So, are you saying that we shouldn't spend anything on the military ?
Shall we take it down to zero ?
Hey, let's just leave NATO, because it hasn't done anything for 60 years now.
Not since Pearson..... 2%
And now a question for the lefties around here.
What the real reason for you to be screaming so loud about 2%, a commitment we have never met, and probably never will.
Too much money ?
Or, the reason I suspect, is just more TDS.[/QUOTE]
I'll answer your comments in order.
1. Cutting social services in order to increase military spending would be political suicide for any Canadian government, which is why no Canadian PM has done it.
I think it is time to restructure the Canadian military based on the way it is used most often. The air force and navy might not like it, but they haven't made any real contribution to Canada's military since world War II. Focus on the army and make it into a world class force. No more borrowing or rentingof equipment from our allies.
And yes, 2% is too much money. As I pointed out, Canada faces no real military threats and the military, unlike the fire department and the police force, makes no useful civilian contribution.
Dream on. None of those nations is a military threat to Canada. I'll agree with using the military in domestic disasters, but we don't need it to face some imaginary overseas bogeymen.
You just got schooled son
It would be closer to $16 Billion and 1/2 of it could come from the invisible social infrastructure that is in the budget now, cut back on the welfare payments paid out around the world that basically are stolen by dictators. There is a very large sink hole for money in Canada that no one wants to talk about, because they will be called racist that can more than pay for the increase in spending. A portion of the new carbon tax can be allocated to the military and why not they are being spent on general maintenance on Gov. buildings anyway. just a few ideas anyway
I stand corrected. I expect your higher figure is much closer than mine. However, Canada faces few military threats not just because the US is our southern neighbour, but also because of its geography. We really don't have any potential enemies who can easily get at us.
The biggest cost for any PM is probably security. It would be more like 100/per day per person for everyone in his entourage. And quite frankly I would not expect any PM to fly coach.
No the allowance was pretty generous at the time I thought. You could get a pretty good meal at that time for under $10. Of course shit like tipping the waitress was our responsibility. Not sure how these idiots nowadays can justify tipping the waitress on the taxpayer's "dime". (I imagine this is typical of the shit Trump is trying to cut out)
I'll answer your comments in order.
1. Cutting social services in order to increase military spending would be political suicide for any Canadian government, which is why no Canadian PM has done it.
I think it is time to restructure the Canadian military based on the way it is used most often. The air force and navy might not like it, but they haven't made any real contribution to Canada's military since world War II. Focus on the army and make it into a world class force. No more borrowing or rentingof equipment from our allies.
And yes, 2% is too much money. As I pointed out, Canada faces no real military threats and the military, unlike the fire department and the police force, makes no useful civilian contribution.
Dream on. None of those nations is a military threat to Canada. I'll agree with using the military in domestic disasters, but we don't need it to face some imaginary overseas bogeymen.
I stand corrected. I expect your higher figure is much closer than mine. However, Canada faces few military threats not just because the US is our southern neighbour, but also because of its geography. We really don't have any potential enemies who can easily get at us.
The biggest cost for any PM is probably security. It would be more like 100/per day per person for everyone in his entourage. And quite frankly I would not expect any PM to fly coach.[/QUOTE]
When you consider all the duties the military job description entails, it's probably money damn well spent. When they are called in for fire suppression, the job is probably done fairly cheaply by today's standards. As far as the P.M. flying "coach" (whatever that is) he should fly the same class as those paying the shot or buck up himself for the difference. We are paying money to get a job done, not a f**king holiday!
Looks like this post got badly mangled somehow.
Trump, Churchill’s Chair, and Barack Obama
https://www.americanthinker.com/articles/2018/07/trump_churchills_chair_and_barack_obama.html
Yer TDS is showing.
The air force and navy might not like it, but they haven't made any real contribution to Canada's military since world War II.
You don't know that this is true. Quietly going about our business and doing our jobs is not doing nothing
Fact is, the only publicity that our military produces are negative, little bites for the most part
Would you know, for instance, that five ships from our Navy, including a brand new one, are sailing in a fleet with 25 other allies, as we post? Didn't know that there is a new one, either?
By the way, there is no cheaper way for the Canadian Government to project power around the globe than by sending a ship
If you think that the Army is the sharp end, then that suggests that we need some amphibious capability .
. something that the Conservatoves originally proposed a decade ago. We came close to acquiring it, too.but can you imagine the squawking about "aircraft carriers" in the Star?
http://www.google.ca/amp/s/ottawaci...ps-initiative-on-hold-because-of-election/amp
And before you get your knickers in a knot about the money, we were goong to get them for a fraction of what we are about to pay for two far less capable Protecteur Class AORs.
You don't know that this is true. Quietly going about our business and doing our jobs is not doing nothing
Fact is, the only publicity that our military produces are negative, little bites for the most part
Would you know, for instance, that five ships from our Navy, including a brand new one, are sailing in a fleet with 25 other allies, as we post? Didn't know that there is a new one, either?
By the way, there is no cheaper way for the Canadian Government to project power around the globe than by sending a ship
If you think that the Army is the sharp end, then that suggests that we need some amphibious capability .
. something that the Conservatoves originally proposed a decade ago. We came close to acquiring it, too.but can you imagine the squawking about "aircraft carriers" in the Star?
http://www.google.ca/amp/s/ottawaci...ps-initiative-on-hold-because-of-election/amp
And before you get your knickers in a knot about the money, we were goong to get them for a fraction of what we are about to pay for two far less capable Protecteur Class AORs.
Last edited:
Coach class is for is for grunts that hafta borrow $$ to buy a ticket, no matter even $wivel servants can't by a ticket to get on our pms luxury air service.
https://www.paintsquare.com/news/?fuseaction=view&id=9744
Sorry that was a near useless link, a better pic of the pms ride, it's rudimentry but still a step above coach class.
https://www.cbc.ca/news/opinion/macdougall-pm-plane-1.3834965
https://www.cbc.ca/news/opinion/macdougall-pm-plane-1.3834965
It doesn't look dramatically different from the 707s that we flew around in when dinosaurs walked the Earth and they weren't very different from that of the North Stars before them. Surely, all of that design stuff doesn't have to be re-done every generation? Close the fecking CAF Art Department!
Trump sez germany be hostage to putin & co. even as his admin maintains 30k+ troops in germany. 
Sum up the number of troops trump & co. have stationed around the globe n' eezy to understand why he passes the hat around nato.
Sum up the number of troops trump & co. have stationed around the globe n' eezy to understand why he passes the hat around nato.
Russia Threatens Response if Sweden, Finland Join NATO
Russia’s defense minister has said NATO’s increasing ties with Sweden and Finland are “worrying” and such actions force his nation to “take response measures.”
“A treaty was signed in May that provides for [Sweden and Finland’s] full participation in the exercises of the alliance and the possibility of using its command-and-control systems for troops and weapons,” Sergei Shoigu said Tuesday, according to state-run media. “In exchange, NATO received unrestricted access to the airspace and territorial waters of these countries.”
Shoigu said that “such steps by Western colleagues” work to harm the current system of global security and create “greater mistrust, forcing us to take response measures.”
Following a NATO summit in Brussels earlier this month, the alliance’s heads of state and government met with leaders of Sweden and Finland to “discuss shared security challenges,” according to an official statement.
“This trend clearly indicates that NATO countries are trying in every possible way to prevent Russia from emerging as a geopolitical competitor, especially with its own allies,” Shoigu argued.
NATO members and other European nations have eyed Moscow’s apparent ambitions to expand warily, especially since a 2014 decision to support separatist rebels in Ukraine and annex the Crimean Peninsula. Many European nations—including Sweden, Poland, Norway, Latvia, Estonia and Lithuania—have expressed concern that Russia could make similar moves against their sovereignty.
As European nations have worked to increase military ties with Washington and NATO, Russia has repeatedly responded with threats of retaliation.
Norway announced in June that it would more than double the presence of U.S. troops within its borders starting next year. The news led Russia to warn of “consequences " in response. In May, reports suggested that Poland had offered the U.S. $2 billion to place troops permanently on its territory. Moscow warned that such a move could “lead to counteraction” from its side.
While the U.S. has continued to support European allies and NATO militarily, President Donald Trump has vocally taken an oppositional stance toward the international alliance while attempting to cozy up to Moscow. Following a controversial Helsinki one-on-one meeting with Russian President Vladimir Putin last week, which followed on the heels of the NATO summit, Trump hailed the encounter with the Russian leader as a “great success.”
“While I had a great meeting with NATO...I had an even better meeting with Vladimir Putin of Russia,” Trump said in a Tweet. “Sadly, it is not being reported that way.”
Somehow the writer of the article made it Trump's fault SMH
Russia’s defense minister has said NATO’s increasing ties with Sweden and Finland are “worrying” and such actions force his nation to “take response measures.”
“A treaty was signed in May that provides for [Sweden and Finland’s] full participation in the exercises of the alliance and the possibility of using its command-and-control systems for troops and weapons,” Sergei Shoigu said Tuesday, according to state-run media. “In exchange, NATO received unrestricted access to the airspace and territorial waters of these countries.”
Shoigu said that “such steps by Western colleagues” work to harm the current system of global security and create “greater mistrust, forcing us to take response measures.”
Following a NATO summit in Brussels earlier this month, the alliance’s heads of state and government met with leaders of Sweden and Finland to “discuss shared security challenges,” according to an official statement.
“This trend clearly indicates that NATO countries are trying in every possible way to prevent Russia from emerging as a geopolitical competitor, especially with its own allies,” Shoigu argued.
NATO members and other European nations have eyed Moscow’s apparent ambitions to expand warily, especially since a 2014 decision to support separatist rebels in Ukraine and annex the Crimean Peninsula. Many European nations—including Sweden, Poland, Norway, Latvia, Estonia and Lithuania—have expressed concern that Russia could make similar moves against their sovereignty.
As European nations have worked to increase military ties with Washington and NATO, Russia has repeatedly responded with threats of retaliation.
Norway announced in June that it would more than double the presence of U.S. troops within its borders starting next year. The news led Russia to warn of “consequences " in response. In May, reports suggested that Poland had offered the U.S. $2 billion to place troops permanently on its territory. Moscow warned that such a move could “lead to counteraction” from its side.
While the U.S. has continued to support European allies and NATO militarily, President Donald Trump has vocally taken an oppositional stance toward the international alliance while attempting to cozy up to Moscow. Following a controversial Helsinki one-on-one meeting with Russian President Vladimir Putin last week, which followed on the heels of the NATO summit, Trump hailed the encounter with the Russian leader as a “great success.”
“While I had a great meeting with NATO...I had an even better meeting with Vladimir Putin of Russia,” Trump said in a Tweet. “Sadly, it is not being reported that way.”
Somehow the writer of the article made it Trump's fault SMH
Things must be getting bad if the Swedes are about to drop their official neutrality considering all of the danger that surrounded them during the 20th Century. The Swedes are right there, bordering on Russia, having to be constantly up-to-date and aware of the threat that Russia poses to them. The message that I take away from this is that were are severely underestimating the threat that Russia poses.
Finland's situation is different. They are like Latvia, Lithuania and Estonia ... old pieces of the Russian Empire that they want back. The big difference between Finland and the Baltic countries is that the Russians were not able to create large Russian enclaves in Finland but, no doubt, they still consider it to be "their's'.
Finland's situation is different. They are like Latvia, Lithuania and Estonia ... old pieces of the Russian Empire that they want back. The big difference between Finland and the Baltic countries is that the Russians were not able to create large Russian enclaves in Finland but, no doubt, they still consider it to be "their's'.
Some scoff but swedes know this sea monster is in reality an advanced tech russian sub with weaponry that mimics star wars best, small wonder they see nato as less of a threat.
Wisdom Quarterly: American Buddhist Journal: Naga: Real-life Sea Monster in Sweden
Wisdom Quarterly: American Buddhist Journal: Naga: Real-life Sea Monster in Sweden
Let's hope nobody sets off any firecrackers. NATO would be history by the time shooting stopped.
It set limits on what what Russia would do to counter the action, the limits are off but Russia already has all the equipment needed to whack NATO. This is NATO spending money that isn't theirs to spend more or less.