Somebody please, loan them an army.

[Fade]

Buddy can you spare a dime (http://www.canada.com/national/nationalpost/news/story.html?id=97f7dbbe-981a-4085-9686-e87fab611fbb)?

A quote
"They shouldn't be having to look for nickel and dime savings when the government is blowing hundreds of millions on sponsorship programs."

and another
"Nobody has ever seen a bankrupt military in a developed country.... This year I predict we will see that in Canada."

[Wolfe]

Wow, if that happens then anyone could overthrow Canada. Like Ethiopia, Lebanon or even Bin Laden all by himself . . . . :lol:

Over funding of social programs that leave your military budget in the dumpster is called a "BONEHEAD" move. :-P

[Glaucus]

Ah, our military has been too weak to properly defend a nation of this size for years. If the Soviets decided to invade back in the 70's we wouldn't have had a hope in hell of stopping them back then either. And so what if Etheopia's militias could wipe out Canada's military, they would first need to get their army over here and that's something they can't do.

Anyway, the simple fact is most Canadians don't care about our military, and that probably has a lot to do with the fact that we don't have any real enemies either. I mean, it really is ridiculous to think that anyone would invade us. We're sorta like Greenland that way. The fact that our military isn't adequate to take part in the destructive adventures of the American war machine is perfectly fine by me.

- Mike

[iamaboringperson]

Hey! Who wants to take over a country! :-P

9,220,970 sq km of pure fun fun fun! :-D

[iamaboringperson]

it really is ridiculous to think that anyone would invade us.bzzzz
Based on what?

There are plenty of groups that would like to take over a country and run it their way!

For years communists were planning on taking over the Australian government. And they could have done it too, if it were not for our excelent government intelligence.

Part of their plan kind of relied on people from China taking over the place, assuming that our forces would be too week (and the area too great for them)

Reducing the size of the millitary is a bad idea (for Canada, at least)

[whabang]

I'm getting a deja vu here!
Yesterday, the swedish supreme commander announced that there is a six billion "black hole" in the defence budget. Suits me fine - I have the economic situation to thank for not being forced into the military. :-)

[iamaboringperson]

On a related 'note' :-D (http://www.canada.com/national/story.asp?id=672C9B22-46F0-4F30-B992-E4E8D46DE14D)

[T_Bone]

Damnit Ima! You blew their cover! That was their new low budget defense strategy! They spread these false maps in the hopes invaders would become confused and lost! :lol:

[iamaboringperson]

You mean the money?
I thought it would be there so that they know where they are (and probably also to find out where they're going ;)


...


Doesn't Canadian money have the Queens head on the back these days?

[FluffyMcDeath]

@Fade,

Canada's military is facinga half a billion dollar shortfall, which is considerably less than what the US army is facing. They're going to be unfunded to the tune of 35 billion or so untill after the election which is 70 times the shortfall for an army of a country with only 10 times the population.

This is political hay making and is no great surprise.

As for whether we could defend this country with our armed forces, give me a break. We have the population of California on a landmass larger than the US. Even if everyone was in the army it would be tough to hold.

On the other hand, any occupying force would find it equally hard to hold so it's probably not worth it, at least untill the price of oil goes up enough to make our tarsands economical enough to fund the invasion.

[aardvark]

As I said in my post here, (http://www.amiga.org/forums/showthread.php?t=6010) Canada has been invaded 3 times in the last 200 years, each time by Americans.

Doesn't Canadian money have the Queens head on the back these days?

Only on the $20 and I believe the $1000 bills. She's on all the coins though. Here's a picture of the notehttp://www.bankofcanada.ca/en/banknotes/graphs/photos/general/2004/cjs_100b.gif

[Fade]

Yeah Fluffy, but you failed to point out that you could put all of Canada's military in a football stadium, and a not very large one at that.

[Speelgoedmannetje]

First thing with every endeavour, is that you have to calculate: what does it take.

This should be the case with investing in the army.

What does it take to reach my goals Today's goals are to maintain peace and to eleminate excessive cruelty.
And to keep the casualty figures as low as possible when it's neccesary to use violence.

[that_punk_guy]

Wolfe wrote:
Wow, if that happens then anyone could overthrow Canada.

And yet, no-one does. No-one attacks. Why is that?

[Speelgoedmannetje]

that_punk_guy wrote:
Wolfe wrote:
Wow, if that happens then anyone could overthrow Canada.

And yet, no-one does. No-one attacks. Why is that?
Because Canada has too many friends in the world :-D

[bloodline]

that_punk_guy wrote:
Wolfe wrote:
Wow, if that happens then anyone could overthrow Canada.

And yet, no-one does. No-one attacks. Why is that?


You've not been to Canada have you? ;-)

[KennyR]

:lol:

Invading Canada? Are some people here crazy or something?

1) Canada is bordered by only one country - the USA. Who's going to invade? Does anyone know the logistics of getting an army across an ocean? Certainly not iamboringperson! :lol: Even D-Day, Operation Torch, and the liberation of the Pacific Islands were launched from nearby land.

2) Canada is like Russia - the day you decide to invade it is the day you lose the war. Too wide, too rough, too extreme.

3) Canada still has powerful allies. Anyone attempting a sea-borne invasion can expect to see the UK and the US intercede on Canada's behalf.

4) Canadians aren't interested in building a huge military to wave in front of the world like a teenager trying to prove he has a big penis. If they don't need it, then there's no use in spending taxpayer's dollars pretending they're some kind of powerful empire.

5) The idea of Canada being invaded is just so plain silly I shouldn't even need to state these points.

[T_Bone]

KennyR wrote:
:lol:

Invading Canada? Are some people here crazy or something?

1) Canada is bordered by only one country - the USA. Who's going to invade? Does anyone know the logistics of getting an army across an ocean? Certainly not iamboringperson! :lol: Even D-Day, Operation Torch, and the liberation of the Pacific Islands were launched from nearby land.

2) Canada is like Russia - the day you decide to invade it is the day you lose the war. Too wide, too rough, too extreme.

3) Canada still has powerful allies. Anyone attempting a sea-borne invasion can expect to see the UK and the US intercede on Canada's behalf.

4) Canadians aren't interested in building a huge military to wave in front of the world like a teenager trying to prove he has a big penis. If they don't need it, then there's no use in spending taxpayer's dollars pretending they're some kind of powerful empire.

5) The idea of Canada being invaded is just so plain silly I shouldn't even need to state these points.

/me eyes my SUV...

/me eyes Oil reserves in Canada...

I think you guys should listen to KennyR. You have absolutely no need to defend yourselves.
:-P

[Speelgoedmannetje]

T_Bone wrote:
/me eyes my SUV...

/me eyes Oil reserves in Canada...

I think you guys should listen to KennyR. You have absolutely no need to defend yourselves.
:-P That'd be a bear which looks in a bees nest for honey. And got stinged in his nose :-P.

[bloodline]

you say:


4) Canadians aren't interested in building a huge military to wave in front of the world like a teenager trying to prove he has a big penis. If they don't need it, then there's no use in spending taxpayer's dollars pretending they're some kind of powerful empire.


But you also say:


3) Canada still has powerful allies. Anyone attempting a sea-borne invasion can expect to see the UK and the US intercede on Canada's behalf.


So what you mean is that if it wasn't for Americas "Willy waving", we wouldn't be able to sleep safe at night...

You know, I actually agree with you :-) You don't have to like it you just have to accept it. :crazy:

[KennyR]

bloodline wrote:
So what you mean is that if it wasn't for Americas "Willy waving", we wouldn't be able to sleep safe at night...

Well not quite, but it could be nice to let someone else wave their tackle around so we don't have to. ;-)

Problem is America have gone long past the point where their forces are necessary for defence of their continent. In other words, their dick size boasting has reached the level of "My willy's so huge, Steve Irwin dangled his baby in front of it!"

[FluffyMcDeath]

T_Bone wrote:

I think you guys should listen to KennyR. You have absolutely no need to defend yourselves.
:-P

It's not a matter of need, it's a matter of capability.
There is only one nation on the planet that is in the position to launch an invasion and that is the US. There is absolutely no way that we could thwart that.

The reason that we have an army is not for defense per se, but to fulfil NATO and UN obligations.

[T_Bone]

bloodline wrote:
So what you mean is that if it wasn't for Americas "Willy waving", we wouldn't be able to sleep safe at night...

You know, I actually agree with you :-) You don't have to like it you just have to accept it. :crazy:

I like the way you think! :-P

[FluffyMcDeath]

Fade wrote:
Yeah Fluffy, but you failed to point out that you could put all of Canada's military in a football stadium, and a not very large one at that.

Another crack like that and we'll send half our navy to destroy you. Or we could wait until the other canoe gets fixed and then we'll send the whole navy!!!!!

[FluffyMcDeath]

Over funding of social programs that leave your military budget in the dumpster is called a "BONEHEAD" move. :-P

No, overfunding your military to the point that your social programs collapse is a "BONEHEAD" move. Spending your treasure on military adventures around the world is a "BONEHEAD" move as all the other empires in history eventually found out.

It's always a matter of balance. If you spend everything on defense, you have nothing left to defend. If you turn your country into a police state to defend freedom you loose the freedom you tried to defend.

[T_Bone]

FluffyMcDeath wrote:

Fade wrote:
Yeah Fluffy, but you failed to point out that you could put all of Canada's military in a football stadium, and a not very large one at that.

Another crack like that and we'll send half our navy to destroy you. Or we could wait until the other canoe gets fixed and then we'll send the whole navy!!!!!

Ditch the boat, wait till the water freezes and send them over on iceskates with hockeysticks. Hit us in our weak spot! :-D

[FluffyMcDeath]

T_Bone wrote:

Ditch the boat, wait till the water freezes and send them over on iceskates with hockeysticks. Hit us in our weak spot! :-D

Good idea. I'll round up our best Czechs and Russians.

[Dan]

whabang wrote:
Suits me fine - I have the economic situation to thank for not being forced into the military. :-)
Me too, we don´t need any army, anyone is welcome to take over our nationaldebt.
And why the hell doesn´t they sell all those JAS-planes on ebay?
And didn´t we have a law against selling weapons to countries which is at war such as the USA not long ago, and India then and now?
Why be hypocrites, let´s start a Bofors Nuclear division.
We could sell some nuke to the Canadians so they could defend their southernborder :lol:

[Glaucus]

iamaboringperson wrote:

Doesn't Canadian money have the Queens head on the back these days?Well, if I ever get my hands on some, I'll let ya know! ;-)

- Mike

[Glaucus]

bloodline wrote:

So what you mean is that if it wasn't for Americas "Willy waving", we wouldn't be able to sleep safe at night...

You know, I actually agree with you :-) You don't have to like it you just have to accept it. :crazy:Another way to look at it would be to say; Since America is busy making more and more enemies for itself, no one would waste their time invading Canada when they could instead set their sites on those who are really causing them problems. ;-)

- Mike

[Glaucus]

FluffyMcDeath wrote:

T_Bone wrote:

Ditch the boat, wait till the water freezes and send them over on iceskates with hockeysticks. Hit us in our weak spot! :-D

Good idea. I'll round up our best Czechs and Russians.:lol: heh, I hope for your sake Fluffy that Don Cherry doesn't read this forum! ;-)

- Mike

[Glaucus]

This thread reminds me of some jokes I saw a couple years ago, making fun of our military. They were priceless. The only one I remember was this photo captioned "Canadian Airforce", and the photo associated with it was that of a fighter plane with a guy strapped under the wing, holding a hand gun and pointing it forward. That was pretty funny, now if I could only find it again, it would be totally appropriate for this forum! :-)

A buddy of mine actually served in our Navy for a few years and has told me all about our "great" navy, and that we played a valuable role in the first Gulf War. You see, it's legal for Canadian ships to sell booze on board, and so when American sailors are off duty they come over to the Canadian ships and get wasted! You see, just because we don't have the biggest guns on the sea doesn't mean we don't play a useful role! :pint: ;-)

- Mike

[T_Bone]

:lol:

The SS StrangeBrew!

[Dan]

-Why did the danish sent a submarine to the latest Gulf war?
-To use as a beercooler! :-)

[Speelgoedmannetje]

Dan wrote:
-Why did the danish sent a submarine to the latest Gulf war?
-To use as a beercooler! :-)
You do not know how IMPORTANT this is (for those who drink beer). :lol:

[Argo]

Get ready to become the 51st state. Soon afterward, Bush will be drilling you for oil, natural gas, timber, and any other natural resource he feels is in short supply.

[Acill]

that_punk_guy wrote:
Wolfe wrote:
Wow, if that happens then anyone could overthrow Canada.

And yet, no-one does. No-one attacks. Why is that?


Hmmm why build up your military if your Canada or even Mexico. Both have a small and usless force that cant protect themselves if attacked. They dont need to with the United States playing policemen of the world all the time. :roll: Its seems we are hated up to the point of a nation needing something then we are best friends again. :roll:

[whabang]

Dan wrote:

whabang wrote:
Suits me fine - I have the economic situation to thank for not being forced into the military. :-)
Me too, we don´t need any army, anyone is welcome to take over our nationaldebt.
And why the hell doesn´t they sell all those JAS-planes on ebay?
And didn´t we have a law against selling weapons to countries which is at war such as the USA not long ago, and India then and now?
Why be hypocrites, let´s start a Bofors Nuclear division.
We could sell some nuke to the Canadians so they could defend their southernborder :lol:


LOL!
Mind you, FOA were less than a year from having a usable nuclear bomb when the reichstag decided that the development should be stopped (back in the 60's IIRC).
Our chemical weapons were stopped in a similar manner.

The reason that we sell weapons to India is that we make so much money on it! If it hadn't been for the US then the Griffin wuold have been sold in the same way - worldwide.

[KennyR]

Ascii wrote:
Its seems we are hated up to the point of a nation needing something then we are best friends again.

Having the USA as an ally is like having a Luger* in your pocket. Great to have, even though you'll probably never need it, but probably more dangerous just having it than whatever you could use it against.

* (The P08 "Luger" pistol was notoriously unreliable. Sit down with it in your pocket and it could change your sex.)

[Dan]

whabang wrote:
LOL!
Mind you, FOA were less than a year from having a usable nuclear bomb when the reichstag decided that the development should be stopped (back in the 60's IIRC).
Didn´t IAEA complained a couple of years ago about us being able to produce a-bombs at the Studsvik researchplant.


The reason that we sell weapons to India is that we make so much money on it!
Deduct Pr-expenses, bribes e.t.c and I think it just about covers the costs. The real reason is to keep the jobs and to keep the swedish defense industry alive.

[Glaucus]

Its seems we are hated up to the point of a nation needing something then we are best friends again.Give me a break. The more Canada distances it's foreign policies from American foreign policies, the less "protection" we'll need from the US. We don't have a military because we have no enemies. Perhaps if we are ever targetted by some foreign power then we'll invest in a modern army, but until then, what's the point?!?

- Mike

[Fade]

@ KennyR
"* (The P08 "Luger" pistol was notoriously unreliable. Sit down with it in your pocket and it could change your sex.)"
---------------------

I guess that's why it was manufactured for almost half a century, by so many countries, and why they bring such outrageous prices on the market.

xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

@ Glaucus
"Perhaps if we are ever targetted by some foreign power then we'll invest in a modern army, but until then, what's the point?"
---------------

Because at that point, it is always too late!

[FluffyMcDeath]

Fade wrote:

Because at that point, it is always too late!

Quite true. That's why diplomacy is so important, and hugely cheaper than having an offensive military capability large enough to beat all comers.

[Fade]

Diplomacy is important, but warlike nations have usually negotiated a treaty of some sort with weaker nations just before they have attacked them.

An easy way to get them to look the other way before the attack.

[Speelgoedmannetje]

But the US has a rather offensive military equipment, rather than a defensive, considering they have the biggest nuclear equipment in the world......

[FluffyMcDeath]

Fade wrote:
Diplomacy is important, but warlike nations have usually negotiated a treaty of some sort with weaker nations just before they have attacked them.

An easy way to get them to look the other way before the attack.

That wasn't the case in Afghanistan or Iraq. Those things are usually done when adversaries are more evenly matched and dirty tricks can generate advantage. In the case of warlike nations with huge capabilities, they just walk in when they feel like it.

Anyway, I'm not saying diplomacy always suceeds, but it is cheaper than fighting wars you can't win. Even though little Bobby Canuck gives Uncle Sam his lunch money on the playground every day doesn't mean he isn't gonna get a s#!t kicking behind the bike sheds from time to time.

[Speelgoedmannetje]

Fight wars you can't win. Oh so true, you can't bomb ideas out of people's heads.

[KennyR]

Fade wrote:
(The P08 "Luger" pistol was notoriously unreliable. Sit down with it in your pocket and it could change your sex.)"
---------------------

I guess that's why it was manufactured for almost half a century, by so many countries, and why they bring such outrageous prices on the market.

Nostalgia, really. Even during the war, every Allied soldier wanted to find one. But they were not really a good example of German engineering. The trigger lock was poor and resulted in many accidental deaths, dirt and sand caused major problems, the firing pin had a tendency to break, and anything but round-nosed parabellum rounds often jammed in it. Not a good pistol.

These collectors - do you really think they buy the gun to fire? If they did, they might have a nasty surprise...

[Speelgoedmannetje]

KennyR wrote:
Nostalgia, really.:nervous: weird nostalgia, weird weird weird nostalgia.

[T_Bone]

Speelgoedmannetje wrote:
But the US has a rather offensive military equipment, rather than a defensive, considering they have the biggest nuclear equipment in the world......

I'm not so sure that's true yet. The Soviet Union had a larger nuclear arsenal than we did, I'm not sure how we compare nowdays.

As for equipment, we probably have a higher defensive to offensive spending ratio of anyone, considering the freakin' price of the anti-ICBM missile defense system. :lol:

[Glaucus]

T_Bone wrote:

As for equipment, we probably have a higher defensive to offensive spending ratio of anyone, considering the freakin' price of the anti-ICBM missile defense system. :lol: heh... Well, I assume you're just joking, but in case you're not I'm gonna pounce on that statement and rip it apart just to be safe! :-) I would argue that Canada's defensive to offensive spending is pretty much all on the defensive side of the equation. Could you honestly say any part of our military is offensive (other then it's inadequacy ;-) )???

- Mike

[FluffyMcDeath]

T_Bone wrote:

Speelgoedmannetje wrote:
But the US has a rather offensive military equipment,[...]

As for equipment, we probably have a higher defensive to offensive spending ratio of anyone, considering the freakin' price of the anti-ICBM missile defense system. :lol:

But they're also looking at funding mini nukes , space deployed weaponry and strike anywhere capability so they can blow up anything anywhere with high precision without having to send troops in and a person could argue that those are defensive, but they sound very offensive.

[Glaucus]

a person could argue that those are defensive, but they sound very offensive. Yeah, especially to non-Americans!!! :-o

- Mike

[Speelgoedmannetje]

T_Bone wrote:

Speelgoedmannetje wrote:
But the US has a rather offensive military equipment, rather than a defensive, considering they have the biggest nuclear equipment in the world......

I'm not so sure that's true yet. The Soviet Union had a larger nuclear arsenal than we did, I'm not sure how we compare nowdays.In sheer numbers, you're right, they posesses more than twice the amount of nuclear warheads. source (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/733162.stm) :-? Wonder why US is on top of this list?
More destructive missiles?

[Fade]

Funny that they left out South Africa on that list.

I know that they were supposed to be dismantled, but it is hard to dismantle the knowledge of how to build them.