Canada would have to devote a lot more resources to the military for a number of years to catch up to Switzerland’s military in either per capita terms or military expenditure as a proportion of GDP. Yes, you are right, they do have better weapons than we do.wet/dry vac said:
The End of the Canadian Military?
- Thread starter xarir
- Start date
Best trained and professional compared to who. At one time you might have been right but no longer . Look at the so calledKeebler Elf said:
professionals behaviour in somalia.
First of all to be peacekeepers someone has to die to have a peace to keep . Of course it's allright as long as it's not canadians.
Even if our army was well trained which I don't believe it is useless without the right equipment . Our equipment is a joke.
We don't even have proper armoured vehicles. Guess what, you need equipment to fight a war.
Other countries are getting smart by reducing their military except for the U.S. who always seems to need a war.
What exactly does canada need an army for who is going to invade.
Our army is so pathetic I bet Taiwan could invade canada and take it over.
Over the protests of many (most north of the border) The US would protect Canada from the Taiwan army.booboobear said:
Re: Do you think
Hypothetically, let's say you're right and I'm wrong, but I don't understand why I'm wrong. With your power you could beat the snot out of me all day to change my mind, but I still wouldn't know why I'm wrong. The only thing you'll acheive is that I'll hate your guts afterwards. Violence breeds violence. Education has taught me that. Kids in Canadian schools are taught that. Continental Europe knows that. But why not North Korea? Because corrupt leaders use propaganda or a restrictive form of education to control people's minds. The flexing of muscle alone will only cause unrest. And that's evident around the world with this stupid war in Iraq. The people of the US should be shown that peace is not what their government is really up to.onthebottom said:
We're not moving away from real power, we're moving away from brute power.
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: I don't think
OTB
I don't mind that you pursue your own interests, all countries do, I just want you to have the power and *alls to follow through.Keebler Elf said:
OTB
Re: Appeasement
OTB
This is the thing I love best about US hating Liberals, their complete lack of proportion.jwmorrice said:
OTB
Re: Re: Do you think
Having said that (in more inflammatory terms than are necessary) the British stood alone against the worlds most formidable force for years until the Grand Alliance was formed an Russia and the US came to her aid. I have nothing but admiration for the British - they rearmed too late and paid the price and sent Churchill packing too soon so that only Stalin had the full credibility of beating the Germans. It cost the world millions of dead in WWII and 50 years of cold war after.
Never show evil weakness, never. It only breeds violence.
OTB
Only after hiding his head in the sand for many years.james t kirk said:
The only "galloping" the British did before the US started assisting them was in reverse - back to the island via Dunkirk and moon walking backward across Northern Africa.james t kirk said:
Having said that (in more inflammatory terms than are necessary) the British stood alone against the worlds most formidable force for years until the Grand Alliance was formed an Russia and the US came to her aid. I have nothing but admiration for the British - they rearmed too late and paid the price and sent Churchill packing too soon so that only Stalin had the full credibility of beating the Germans. It cost the world millions of dead in WWII and 50 years of cold war after.
Never show evil weakness, never. It only breeds violence.
OTB
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: I don't think
OTB
NITROX bro NITROX.scubadoo said:Must have been due to the excess levels of nitrogen in my blood stream.
OTB
Man do you guys
With the exception of the Star Wars program above (which may deserve it's own thread, I'm going to ignore it here) we don't spend our defense money on defending the US, just US interests. Face it, there is no country that could project enough power to even dent the US. The real threats the US worries about are terror and regional instability. The latter is where an enormous amount of our budget goes, 35k troops in South Korea, NATO troops...... we subsidize most of the rest of the worlds defense.
OTB
have a way of getting off topic. I don't think you should send US money - then we'd use it to pursue our policies instead of yours.nearlynormal said:
With the exception of the Star Wars program above (which may deserve it's own thread, I'm going to ignore it here) we don't spend our defense money on defending the US, just US interests. Face it, there is no country that could project enough power to even dent the US. The real threats the US worries about are terror and regional instability. The latter is where an enormous amount of our budget goes, 35k troops in South Korea, NATO troops...... we subsidize most of the rest of the worlds defense.
OTB
What's this??
jwm
Hehehe, didn't know that I was either "US hating" or a big-L liberal. Here I thought I was just a guy with a sense of irony. And a "complete lack of proportion" (italics added)? But doesn't that very comment illustrate the trait you claim to see in others? I love pots calling kettles black.onthebottom said:
jwm
Re: Re: Re: Do you think
Since the Germans couldn't knock out the RAF, they couldn't land. The USA had NOTHING to do with the design and production of the Hurricane, spitfire, Manchester, or Lancaster. (Well at one point Packard made merlin engines under contract to Rolls, but in return the British GAVE them their technology for the best fighter engine in the world.)
Interestingly enough, the American P-51 mustang was a flying piece of shit until someone had the bright idea to use British engines (Merlins).
Last I checked, every bit of American "assistance" to Britain came with a price tag which the British PAID in full.
Oh, and the USA continued selling arms to the Germans until 1942. Read "Trading with the Enemy"
You might be interested to know that Prescott Bush was a leading proponent of continued economic and military ties to nazi Germany. In fact he had to be shut down by the American government to get him to stop continued commerce with the Nazis. (And yes, Prescott Bush is George HW Bush's father)
You know, you americans kill me sometimes. You think you were the only ones to contribute to WW2.onthebottom said:
Since the Germans couldn't knock out the RAF, they couldn't land. The USA had NOTHING to do with the design and production of the Hurricane, spitfire, Manchester, or Lancaster. (Well at one point Packard made merlin engines under contract to Rolls, but in return the British GAVE them their technology for the best fighter engine in the world.)
Interestingly enough, the American P-51 mustang was a flying piece of shit until someone had the bright idea to use British engines (Merlins).
Last I checked, every bit of American "assistance" to Britain came with a price tag which the British PAID in full.
Oh, and the USA continued selling arms to the Germans until 1942. Read "Trading with the Enemy"
You might be interested to know that Prescott Bush was a leading proponent of continued economic and military ties to nazi Germany. In fact he had to be shut down by the American government to get him to stop continued commerce with the Nazis. (And yes, Prescott Bush is George HW Bush's father)
Re: Re: Re: Do you think
Neville Chamberlain was only Prime Minister of Britain for 3 years. I don't see how he could have ben "hiding his head in the sand for many years"
(British prime minister from May 28, 1937, to May 10, 1940)
Under Chamberlain, the British enacted the largest military Build up in their entire history.
Chamberlain is often simplistically thought of in terms of "appeasement"
Here's an interesting link for you.....
http://www.historycooperative.org/journals/ht/36.1/br_5.html
The fact of the matter was that he was buying Britain time since he knew that the Americans were not interested in fighting Germany and would prefer to continue their (American) arm sales to Nazi Germany.
You need to do some reading on history mon ami.onthebottom said:
Neville Chamberlain was only Prime Minister of Britain for 3 years. I don't see how he could have ben "hiding his head in the sand for many years"
(British prime minister from May 28, 1937, to May 10, 1940)
Under Chamberlain, the British enacted the largest military Build up in their entire history.
Chamberlain is often simplistically thought of in terms of "appeasement"
Here's an interesting link for you.....
http://www.historycooperative.org/journals/ht/36.1/br_5.html
The fact of the matter was that he was buying Britain time since he knew that the Americans were not interested in fighting Germany and would prefer to continue their (American) arm sales to Nazi Germany.
Seems to me a number of other countries were selling arms to Nazi Germany. But as usual the US is always the culprit. Besides that, there is so much terrible misinformation and scape goating on this thread, I frankly don't know where to start.
EBS
EBS
Re: Re: Re: Re: Do you think
While I greatly admire the fortitude of Churchill and the British people during the Blitz of London I've never found it as impressive as some that a country, in the day of propeller plans and short distance fighters, would be able to defend a single city many miles from an enemy base. The fact that it was such a battle shows how pathetically prepared the British were for WWII (to say nothing of their showing in Europe or Northern Europe).
And no, I don't think we were the only country to make great contributions and sacrifices in WWII, I would just argue (with history on my side I believe) that we were the essential nation.
Like the destroyers or 300 tanks sent to North Africa - you're kidding right. The US congress would not allow the level of aid that Roosevelt wanted to give - thus Lend Lease. His analogy for the American people - when your neighbors house is on fire you lend him your hose you don't sell it to him. America provided tons (literally) of aid to Briton for nothing.
And I think it is you who need the history lesson, may I suggest: http://www.amazon.com/gp/reader/039541055X/ref=sib_dp_pt/002-2767580-1956800#reader-link
it's the first in a series of 6 books by Churchill - once you've read them all we can discuss if you like.
OTB
The Brits got lucky, Germany waited to long to invade (had they gone right after Dunkirk you'd have a guy with a bad mustache on your money) and opened a second front. Never trust a country to a noncom.james t kirk said:
While I greatly admire the fortitude of Churchill and the British people during the Blitz of London I've never found it as impressive as some that a country, in the day of propeller plans and short distance fighters, would be able to defend a single city many miles from an enemy base. The fact that it was such a battle shows how pathetically prepared the British were for WWII (to say nothing of their showing in Europe or Northern Europe).
And no, I don't think we were the only country to make great contributions and sacrifices in WWII, I would just argue (with history on my side I believe) that we were the essential nation.
Typical America bashingjames t kirk said:
james t kirk said:
Like the destroyers or 300 tanks sent to North Africa - you're kidding right. The US congress would not allow the level of aid that Roosevelt wanted to give - thus Lend Lease. His analogy for the American people - when your neighbors house is on fire you lend him your hose you don't sell it to him. America provided tons (literally) of aid to Briton for nothing.
And I think it is you who need the history lesson, may I suggest: http://www.amazon.com/gp/reader/039541055X/ref=sib_dp_pt/002-2767580-1956800#reader-link
it's the first in a series of 6 books by Churchill - once you've read them all we can discuss if you like.
OTB
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Do you think
No, simple fact.
Here
http://www.cpcug.org/user/billb/mustang.html
onthebottom said:
No, simple fact.
Here
http://www.cpcug.org/user/billb/mustang.html
Your reasoning is very simplistic, yes 9/11 was about planes .nearlynormal said:
What happens when/if terrorists in korea or iran etc get a missile capable of reaching the u.s. or canada ( oh i forgot canada has no enemies ) . The whole idea is to plan ahead . The fact is 9/11 was a wake up call to show what terrorists are capable of . If they killed that many people with planes imagine nuclear weapons. Maybe star wars doesn't work now but lets hope we never need something like it. I'm glad you aren't in charge of defense. Plan ahead.
Oh Yeah!
“The prototype of the NA-73, as it was called, was ready to fly in October of 1940 and proved to have an excellent design. The NA-73 had a revolutionary wing design that allowed it to fly at high speeds without adverse compression effects. In other planes, as they approached a certain speed, usually around 450 mph, the air would be flowing around the wing at nearly the speed of sound, putting huge amounts of pressure on the wings, which were unable to deal with the stress. The NA-73 did not have this problem, which meant it could fly safely at much higher speeds.”
So part of this “piece of shit” design was a superior wing?
“It was at this point that an error was made that made the Mustang useless as a long-range offensive fighter. When the NA-73 was mass produced as the P-51, it was powered by a 1250 horspower, liquid-cooled Allison V-1710 engine, which did not have a supercharger and lost performance above 11,800 ft.”
Have to say I never knew this, very interesting.
So, for the next eighteen months, the P-51A's continued to fly with the RAF, doing their unexceptional jobs well.
More of this “piece of shit” aircraft?
This final Mustang design was superior to anything else that flew at the time……The British fighters, the Spitfire and the Hurricane, did not have the range, speed, or power….The result of all of this was that the Allies now had a plane that could go with the bombers all the way to and from their targets, fight and defeat the bombers' German attackers, and not run out of fuel.
So if the Americans are such a “piece of shit” and the British so brilliant why didn’t they build a great fighter? Or a great tank, or a … oh you get the idea.
I just love it when a poster proves himself wrong….Nice job JTK
OTB
james t kirk said:
Quotes from the article:james t kirk said:
“The prototype of the NA-73, as it was called, was ready to fly in October of 1940 and proved to have an excellent design. The NA-73 had a revolutionary wing design that allowed it to fly at high speeds without adverse compression effects. In other planes, as they approached a certain speed, usually around 450 mph, the air would be flowing around the wing at nearly the speed of sound, putting huge amounts of pressure on the wings, which were unable to deal with the stress. The NA-73 did not have this problem, which meant it could fly safely at much higher speeds.”
So part of this “piece of shit” design was a superior wing?
“It was at this point that an error was made that made the Mustang useless as a long-range offensive fighter. When the NA-73 was mass produced as the P-51, it was powered by a 1250 horspower, liquid-cooled Allison V-1710 engine, which did not have a supercharger and lost performance above 11,800 ft.”
Have to say I never knew this, very interesting.
So, for the next eighteen months, the P-51A's continued to fly with the RAF, doing their unexceptional jobs well.
More of this “piece of shit” aircraft?
This final Mustang design was superior to anything else that flew at the time……The British fighters, the Spitfire and the Hurricane, did not have the range, speed, or power….The result of all of this was that the Allies now had a plane that could go with the bombers all the way to and from their targets, fight and defeat the bombers' German attackers, and not run out of fuel.
So if the Americans are such a “piece of shit” and the British so brilliant why didn’t they build a great fighter? Or a great tank, or a … oh you get the idea.
I just love it when a poster proves himself wrong….Nice job JTK
OTB
Appeasement by the US!!???
Mr. Bush's Kowtow
Wednesday, December 10, 2003; Page A30
FOR THE PAST several weeks, Taiwan and China have been exchanging rhetorical broadsides about how the island's political future might be decided. Taiwan's democratically elected president, Chen Shui-bian, has been hinting that maybe his people should make a democratic choice about whether to unite with China or become independent. Beijing's Communist dictators have replied with bellicose threats to settle the matter by force, no matter the price. Yesterday President Bush essentially placed the United States on the side of the dictators who promise war, rather than the democrats whose threat is a ballot box. His gift to visiting Chinese Premier Wen Jiabao was to condemn "the comments and actions made by the leader of Taiwan" while ignoring the sanguinary rhetoric of the man standing next to him. Mr. Bush had his reasons for doing so -- above all to avoid one more foreign policy crisis during an election year. But in avoiding a headache for himself, he demonstrated again how malleable is his commitment to the defense of freedom as a guiding principle of U.S. policy.
Democracy is not always pretty or pure, of course, and Taiwan provides no exception. Mr. Chen has started talking about independence and promoting referendums because he is locked in a reelection battle. Trailing in the polls, he seems to think he can win by producing the same dynamic that helped him four years ago, when China's threats and missile firings in the Taiwan Strait touched off a backlash among voters. Though Mr. Chen favors independence, most Taiwanese do not: Polls show they prefer to maintain the status quo indefinitely. So Mr. Chen cleverly proposes to hold a referendum on his own election day next March asking his citizens not to decide on Taiwan's status but simply to call on China to remove the 500 missiles it has positioned in range of Taiwan and to renounce the use of force. It is, perhaps, a cynical electoral ploy -- something known to occur in other democratic countries -- but it poses no threat to China.
Beijing's new Communist leaders, including Mr. Wen, would be wise to embrace Mr. Chen's demands. Without such steps, they will have no chance of persuading Taiwan's 23 million people to accept unification with the mainland. Instead they have fallen back on the sort of primitive threats that ought to cause other democracies to rally to Taiwan's defense. Last week one general predicted an "abyss of war" if Mr. Chen pressed his independence agenda, and in case that was considered a bluff, spelled out the price that he said China was ready to pay, from cancellation of the 2008 Olympics to mass casualties. "We will not sit by and do nothing when faced with provocative activities," Mr. Wen blustered in an interview with The Post last month.
It's bad enough that the world's largest dictatorship might consider a nonbinding referendum opposing the use of force to be a provocation justifying war. But for the United States to accept such totalitarian logic is inexcusable. Mr. Bush says his policy is to oppose any unilateral change in the status quo by either side and to observe the "one China" policy of previous administrations. Aides say Beijing has been told that the use of force is unacceptable. But Mr. Bush didn't say that. Instead he swallowed Beijing's argument that Mr. Chen's referendum is somehow intolerable, and he dispatched a senior aide to Taipei to insist that no vote be held. A president who believed his own promise to "favor freedom" would have said yesterday that China's "comments and actions" -- from invasion threats to missile deployments -- were of considerably greater concern than a proposed exercise in voting booths.
Perhaps it's GWB who's running for president of the Neville Chamberlain fan club? Nah, just another country, bigger and more powerful than the rest, doing what's in its best interests and morality take the hindmost.
jwm
Interesting article in the Washington Post today about what some see as appeasement of China by the US. Oh, say it ain't so, Joe! Well I guess if you're going to appease, it might as well be with respect to another great power.onthebottom said:
Mr. Bush's Kowtow
Wednesday, December 10, 2003; Page A30
FOR THE PAST several weeks, Taiwan and China have been exchanging rhetorical broadsides about how the island's political future might be decided. Taiwan's democratically elected president, Chen Shui-bian, has been hinting that maybe his people should make a democratic choice about whether to unite with China or become independent. Beijing's Communist dictators have replied with bellicose threats to settle the matter by force, no matter the price. Yesterday President Bush essentially placed the United States on the side of the dictators who promise war, rather than the democrats whose threat is a ballot box. His gift to visiting Chinese Premier Wen Jiabao was to condemn "the comments and actions made by the leader of Taiwan" while ignoring the sanguinary rhetoric of the man standing next to him. Mr. Bush had his reasons for doing so -- above all to avoid one more foreign policy crisis during an election year. But in avoiding a headache for himself, he demonstrated again how malleable is his commitment to the defense of freedom as a guiding principle of U.S. policy.
Democracy is not always pretty or pure, of course, and Taiwan provides no exception. Mr. Chen has started talking about independence and promoting referendums because he is locked in a reelection battle. Trailing in the polls, he seems to think he can win by producing the same dynamic that helped him four years ago, when China's threats and missile firings in the Taiwan Strait touched off a backlash among voters. Though Mr. Chen favors independence, most Taiwanese do not: Polls show they prefer to maintain the status quo indefinitely. So Mr. Chen cleverly proposes to hold a referendum on his own election day next March asking his citizens not to decide on Taiwan's status but simply to call on China to remove the 500 missiles it has positioned in range of Taiwan and to renounce the use of force. It is, perhaps, a cynical electoral ploy -- something known to occur in other democratic countries -- but it poses no threat to China.
Beijing's new Communist leaders, including Mr. Wen, would be wise to embrace Mr. Chen's demands. Without such steps, they will have no chance of persuading Taiwan's 23 million people to accept unification with the mainland. Instead they have fallen back on the sort of primitive threats that ought to cause other democracies to rally to Taiwan's defense. Last week one general predicted an "abyss of war" if Mr. Chen pressed his independence agenda, and in case that was considered a bluff, spelled out the price that he said China was ready to pay, from cancellation of the 2008 Olympics to mass casualties. "We will not sit by and do nothing when faced with provocative activities," Mr. Wen blustered in an interview with The Post last month.
It's bad enough that the world's largest dictatorship might consider a nonbinding referendum opposing the use of force to be a provocation justifying war. But for the United States to accept such totalitarian logic is inexcusable. Mr. Bush says his policy is to oppose any unilateral change in the status quo by either side and to observe the "one China" policy of previous administrations. Aides say Beijing has been told that the use of force is unacceptable. But Mr. Bush didn't say that. Instead he swallowed Beijing's argument that Mr. Chen's referendum is somehow intolerable, and he dispatched a senior aide to Taipei to insist that no vote be held. A president who believed his own promise to "favor freedom" would have said yesterday that China's "comments and actions" -- from invasion threats to missile deployments -- were of considerably greater concern than a proposed exercise in voting booths.
Perhaps it's GWB who's running for president of the Neville Chamberlain fan club? Nah, just another country, bigger and more powerful than the rest, doing what's in its best interests and morality take the hindmost.
jwm
