- Aug 12, 2001
- 40,730
- 670
- 126
. . .or am I intentionally misinterpreting the article?Originally posted by: SSP
Are you stupid or just cant read?
Of Canada?s original fleet of 41 Sea Kings built in Montreal in the 1960s, only 29 remain.
. . .or am I intentionally misinterpreting the article?Originally posted by: SSP
Are you stupid or just cant read?
Of Canada?s original fleet of 41 Sea Kings built in Montreal in the 1960s, only 29 remain.
LOL, apparently Canada is down to 1 helicopter too!
Quote
The one remaining Sea King involved in Operation Megaphone needed to make two trips to lower 14 armed Canadian soldiers on to GTS Katie, a U.S.-owned ship chartered by Ottawa to return $223 million worth of military equipment to Canada from Kosovo
Originally posted by: Rudee
Like I said before, Canada is not policing the world; that's the U.S. We simply don't need a huge modern military. Think of Canada as the world's security guard. We're just sitting there reading the newspaper eating a sandwich, while our American neighbors spend billions of money into tanks, ships and aircraft. Call us when you need us...... We'll be happy to offer moral support. Just don't ask us to commit anything larger than a canoe or two.
Originally posted by: MemnochtheDevil
Originally posted by: Rudee
Like I said before, Canada is not policing the world; that's the U.S. We simply don't need a huge modern military. Think of Canada as the world's security guard. We're just sitting there reading the newspaper eating a sandwich, while our American neighbors spend billions of money into tanks, ships and aircraft. Call us when you need us...... We'll be happy to offer moral support. Just don't ask us to commit anything larger than a canoe or two.
Having no real military budget/power is the main benefit to being next to a large friendly country with a huge military that has no desire to invade (especially now that John Candy is dead).
annex?! screw that, the time to strike is NOW!!
It's true and without the US Canada would not have the same social programs it has now because it would HAVE to spend more on a military.yep. and the socialist states in europe. we've been spending our money protecting them for a long time, without even taking a tribute, i might add, that they've all forgotten what its like having a military and that the world is a scary place.
Well the US still has a better economy than Canada - a per capita better economy I might add. And in terms of sleeping safe at night tell that to the many victims of home invasions that have plaqued Halifax in recent times.Exactly, we can spend the billions of dollars we *didn't* spend on military on economic growth, which allows us to have good jobs, a safe neighborhood to raise our children, and we can sleep at night without worrying about someone trying to kill us.
Originally posted by: Skoorb
I have to say it's selfishness on the part of many canadians knowing that as long as they have a rifle or two to throw into any conflict to say they played a part ...
Originally posted by: Rudee
Like I said before, Canada is not policing the world; that's the U.S. We simply don't need a huge modern military. Think of Canada as the world's security guard. We're just sitting there reading the newspaper eating a sandwich, while our American neighbors spend billions of money into tanks, ships and aircraft. Call us when you need us...... We'll be happy to offer moral support. Just don't ask us to commit anything larger than a canoe or two.
Sad isn't it? Ignore the bully when he's beating on a stranger and he may beat on you next and it's too late. Countries ignore the rest of the world at their own peril. Not saying the US doesn't overstep its bounds but the Canadian political sense, I think, is really in a rut.The truth is, Skoorb, that the majority of Canadians would prefer not to play any part at all.
Well the US still has a better economy than Canada - a per capita better economy I might add. [/quote]Originally posted by: Skoorb
Originally posted by: Skoorb
Sad isn't it? Ignore the bully when he's beating on a stranger and he may beat on you next and it's too late. Countries ignore the rest of the world at their own peril. Not saying the US doesn't overstep its bounds but the Canadian political sense, I think, is really in a rut.The truth is, Skoorb, that the majority of Canadians would prefer not to play any part at all.
Originally posted by: ElFenix
why do we need to invade? the only thing we don't get exactly how we want it is paper... if we invaded then we'd have to put up with canadian beer
Originally posted by: Skoorb
Sad isn't it? Ignore the bully when he's beating on a stranger and he may beat on you next and it's too late. Countries ignore the rest of the world at their own peril. Not saying the US doesn't overstep its bounds but the Canadian political sense, I think, is really in a rut.The truth is, Skoorb, that the majority of Canadians would prefer not to play any part at all.
Originally posted by: Rudee
Originally posted by: Skoorb
Sad isn't it? Ignore the bully when he's beating on a stranger and he may beat on you next and it's too late. Countries ignore the rest of the world at their own peril. Not saying the US doesn't overstep its bounds but the Canadian political sense, I think, is really in a rut.The truth is, Skoorb, that the majority of Canadians would prefer not to play any part at all.
I agree, it's sad. But Canadian history shows this to be the norm. Look the other way, don't make eye contact, and the problem will surely disappear.
Originally posted by: MemnochtheDevil
Originally posted by: Rudee
Like I said before, Canada is not policing the world; that's the U.S. We simply don't need a huge modern military. Think of Canada as the world's security guard. We're just sitting there reading the newspaper eating a sandwich, while our American neighbors spend billions of money into tanks, ships and aircraft. Call us when you need us...... We'll be happy to offer moral support. Just don't ask us to commit anything larger than a canoe or two.
Having no real military budget/power is the main benefit to being next to a large friendly country with a huge military that has no desire to invade (especially now that John Candy is dead).
It's sad really. This has and will always be the Canadian 'military doctrine'.
Before World War I, we had nothing. Then a crisis, we panic and whip together guys at massive expense, and get there (for the most part) a year late.
Before World War II, we had nothing. Then a crisis, we panic and whip together guys at a massive expensive, and get there (for the most part) a year late. (Most of it took longer this time)
Originally posted by: charrison
It's sad really. This has and will always be the Canadian 'military doctrine'.
Before World War I, we had nothing. Then a crisis, we panic and whip together guys at massive expense, and get there (for the most part) a year late.
Before World War II, we had nothing. Then a crisis, we panic and whip together guys at a massive expensive, and get there (for the most part) a year late. (Most of it took longer this time)
This pretty much describes the US as well. After 2 world wars, we just decided it was foolish to completely disassemble the military.
Originally posted by: Scouzer
Originally posted by: charrison
It's sad really. This has and will always be the Canadian 'military doctrine'.
Before World War I, we had nothing. Then a crisis, we panic and whip together guys at massive expense, and get there (for the most part) a year late.
Before World War II, we had nothing. Then a crisis, we panic and whip together guys at a massive expensive, and get there (for the most part) a year late. (Most of it took longer this time)
This pretty much describes the US as well. After 2 world wars, we just decided it was foolish to completely disassemble the military.
Well this is true, but the US wanted to stay out of world affairs during this time period. Canada on the other hand was obligated to follow Britain in World War I. In World War II we were no longer officially obligated, but still felt obligated. Which means any major problem Britain got into, we did too. We should of had some preperation to follow through with our obligations.
Originally posted by: DaveSimmons
Well, almost. Today's Seattle Times has an editorial by Barry Cooper, a political science professor at the University of Calgary.
About the only blue-water vessels that are approximately equal to their U.S. equivalents are a dozen Halifax-class frigates. They are still relatively up-to-date ? except that they carry Sea King helicopters. At 40-plus years of age, these dangerous helicopters are considerably senior to the pilots who fly them.
Worst of all, half of Canada's surface fleet and trained sailors are committed to Operation Apollo, Canada's military contribution to the international campaign against terrorism. But the current levels of commitment are simply not sustainable. There are no plans to replace the old ships. There is no slack to take the frigates out of service to upgrade them. By conservative estimates, within five years, Canada will be unable to mount any task-group deployments.
Matters are even worse in the other two services. The number of operational CF-18 jet fighters has declined from 122 some 20 years ago to about 80. One reason so many Air Canada pilots are so young is because they took early retirement from the air force.
Worst of all is the army. It needs 24 new fire-control-support technicians a year to operate certain wheeled armored vehicles. Over the past four years, a total of four technicians have been recruited. Canada has no first-class tanks.
Maybe we do need to annex Canada for its own protection![]()
