Jump to content
Political Discussion Forums
Army Guy

Is this a lie? "Liberal defence policy forecasts that by 2025, annual defence spending will rise to $32.7 billion"

Recommended Posts

Quote

The Liberal defence policy, released just over 18 months ago, forecasts that by 2025, annual defence spending will rise to $32.7 billion, or about 1.4 per cent of GDP.

Just another liberal lie, to shore up some support from the military. And we fall for the same thing every year....

Quote

"Measured as a share of the economy, the new spending plan will raise the defence budget by over 17 per cent to about 1.1 percentage points of GDP by 2024," the PBO analysis said. "Following this, spending will decline by 38 per cent to 0.69 percentage points of GDP by 2035.

 

 

According to these new figures that the liberals never planed to raise DND budget to more than 1.1 % of GDP.....Man did they ever make it sound good, went out to the general public asked for what they thought, and to the amazement of the liberals most supported spending more , much more on defense.....The liberals never intended to listen to the public ,they have had this planed all along and have been leaking it out slowly....my only question would be WHY, just before an election....do Canadians have long enough memories , maybe not....

Quote

That PBO report also raised concerns about whether the Liberals would even meet their procurement targets and predicted the numbers would fall off a cliff before the 20-year defence spending policy reaches its halfway mark.

 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The answer to your question is simple; the Government, as all Government's of Canada have since Diefenbaker, are in fact bending to the will of the electorate, in that, there are simply no votes for them on the defence file, other than for regional vote buying by military pork barelling procurement and infrastructure boondoggle.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You really think that is true, the liberals did a huge study on our military, gave it to Joe public, they asked how it should be funded, what equipment should they have, how much, how large should it be etc etc......you know all the questions joe Canadian would know or guess because everyone is a general don't you know.......and the answers that came back surprised the liberals, there was a lot of support for military spending and the military....hence why the liberals came out with their new way forward for DND.....so they are not bending to the will of the electorate....where are they going, and while there is support for all this spending , there is a lack of political will to get er done....not surprising there is not a whole lot of will to get anything done by the liberals, except POT now that got everyone attention....everyone is to high to care about anything else....

And i'd say todays purchases coming in around 60 bil for ships buys a lot of politicians. 

Edited by Army Guy
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 minutes ago, Army Guy said:

You really think that is true

Prima facie, if you can't see it, not sure what I can do to help you, because, no offence, but from where I'm sitting, to deny the obvious reality of it, would be delusional.

In terms of the "support" of Canadians for the military, it is entirely rhetorical, because they say one thing and then vote exactly in the opposite direction.

I would submit, that is because the Canadian Public does not view the Canadian Forces are their servants, but rather the servants of the Americans, but also they have been indoctrinated by the socialist leftist dogma to view armed forces not as proud warriors but rather hapless victims and dupes of imperialism, so they don't say the empty things they say about the military because they really care about national security, rather, they say it because they feel sorry for us, as victims.   Or rather they feel sorry for you, because I am (ret.) now

And if you think the NSPS procurement boondoggle is really going to be aloud to cost anywhere near $60 billion delivering anywhere near the number of ships contracted, before they trim it back and/or cancel it and/or it simply collapses under its own weight and fails to launch, sorry, but again, I think you're delusional.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

And if you want to know where this Canadian dogma of soldier = victim comes from, it comes from the Battle of the Somme in the First World War, where the British broke their Empire against the German defences, resulting in the world we live in today, in the wake of what was actually a War of British Hegemonic Succession, succession from the British Empire to the American Empire of Liberty, Canada flipping from British Colony to American colony therein.

Before the Battle of The Somme catastrophe, Canadians were amongst the most gung-ho of the gung-ho for war on behalf of the British Crown, in the entire Empire.

That is why the Canadian Expeditionary Force fought so valiantly and became the elite of the British Army, because the Canadians prior to the Somme, were more British than the British themselves, because of the proximity of the looming menace of the American republic, the Somme broke that and made it go in the opposite direction, to where we are now, in the Empire of Liberty, which is not Canada's job to defend, but rather the Americans job to defend, with Canada never going adventuring a' Somme again.

Edited by Dougie93
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Dougie93 said:

The answer to your question is simple; the Government, as all Government's of Canada have since Diefenbaker, are in fact bending to the will of the electorate, in that, there are simply no votes for them on the defence file, other than for regional vote buying by military pork barelling procurement and infrastructure boondoggle.

There are. Real conservatives do care about the military and want it properly equipped.

Edited by Argus
  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Argus said:

There are. Real conservatives do care about the military and want it properly equipped.

Nothing more than "Real Conservative" virtue signalling.

  • Sad 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
23 minutes ago, Dougie93 said:

Prima facie, if you can't see it, not sure what I can do to help you, because, no offence, but from where I'm sitting, to deny the obvious reality of it, would be delusional.

In terms of the "support" of Canadians for the military, it is entirely rhetorical, because they say one thing and then vote exactly in the opposite direction.

We voted for the Tories for years and they did nothing for the military, despite putting on such a brave front for years. What were we supposed to do then, vote Liberal? NDP? If the Toreis won't spend on the military what can Canadians do?

The problem is the Conservative party takes conservative votes for granted, knowing they have nowhere else to go anyway. We need a real conservative party, or we need conservatives to rush the next Conservative party leadership race the same way Ford nation rushed the Ontario tories, or Sikh nation rushed the NDP leadership race. The problem is there is no vehicle for organizing conservatives.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Dougie93 said:

Nothing more than "Real Conservative" virtue signalling.

You need to learn to differentiate between conservatives and Conservatives.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Argus said:

You need to learn to differentiate between conservatives and Conservatives.

You invoked Conservative when you injected the caveat "Real", which is an inherent and glaring fallacy. 

A conservative position vis a vis supporting the military is to take the Queen's Schilling and join the military, talking a big game about the military while declining to serve in preference of letting others do it, is liberalism.

So in fact the issue here would be that you to learn the difference between fallacious and  logically supported.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Dougie93 said:

You invoked Conservative when you injected the caveat "Real", which is an inherent and glaring fallacy. 

A conservative position vis a vis supporting the military is to take the Queen's Schilling and join the military, talking a big game about the military while declining to serve in preference of letting others do it, is liberalism.

So in fact the issue here would be that you to learn the difference between fallacious and  logically supported.

Sometimes, Dougie, you sound very knowledgeable and intelligent. And then there are other times when I wonder what the hell is going on in your head.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 minutes ago, Argus said:

We voted for the Tories for years and they did nothing for the military, despite putting on such a brave front for years. What were we supposed to do then, vote Liberal? NDP? If the Toreis won't spend on the military what can Canadians do?

The problem is the Conservative party takes conservative votes for granted, knowing they have nowhere else to go anyway. We need a real conservative party, or we need conservatives to rush the next Conservative party leadership race the same way Ford nation rushed the Ontario tories, or Sikh nation rushed the NDP leadership race. The problem is there is no vehicle for organizing conservatives.

There is no solution within the structure of the Confederation you are in now, because all this dysfunction is inherent to the structure of it.

The solution is to devolve and break the big confederated Fake Country down into its component regions which are de facto countries, and just go to a looser association where we would all be healthier wealthier and wise.  

  These devolved Dominions would have the same relationship with each other as Australia and New Zealand have, rather than all being forced together into dysfunction by Ottawa.

Edited by Dougie93

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, Argus said:

Sometimes, Dougie, you sound very knowledgeable and intelligent. And then there are other times when I wonder what the hell is going on in your head.

So what?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Dougie93 said:

So what?

I think you need to revamp your approach because I’m drawing the conclusion that you probably aren’t Canadian.  Either you’re representing a foreign power’s interests or you have your own very unique and quite inscrutable take on Canada.  

Generally speaking, in a country like Canada, the value of the nation state is to allow the variety of groups/cultures in the country to thrive while providing the bigger services that such groups wouldn’t be able to provide for themselves. People come together in the name of common values and form a social contract.  Some services are federal, but most reside in lower levels of government.  Canada is actually a fairly loose confederation, which is why any union with another country, which is what you seem to be driving at, would have to be a loose one that allows Canada to continue to exist as a self-determining nation. Citizens elect whether their countries should enter a union. You can’t just take stuff from people: No taxation without representation, remember?

You say you live in Ontario and are an English Quebecer separatist.  That makes you one of a kind because it’s quite an implausible combination of traits. Go ahead and try to explain your perspective.  Canadians are relatively happy and proud of the country, among the happiest in the world.  The country rates high in many surveys, such as the Human Development Index and happiness indices.

Criticize all you like but most Canadians see our problems as solvable and specific.  I suggest bringing solutions on that basis. Your sledgehammer approach, especially as it doesn’t seem to present plausible solutions, doesn’t look advantageous. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 minutes ago, Zeitgeist said:

I think you need to revamp your approach because I’m drawing the conclusion that you probably aren’t Canadian.  Either you’re representing a foreign power’s interests or you have your own very unique and quite inscrutable take on Canada.  

Generally speaking, in a country like Canada, the value of the nation state is to allow the variety of groups/cultures in the country to thrive while providing the bigger services that such groups wouldn’t be able to provide for themselves. People come together in the name of common values and form a social contract.  Some services are federal, but most reside in lower levels of government.  Canada is actually a fairly loose confederation, which is why any union with another country, which is what you seem to be driving at, would have to be a loose one that allows Canada to continue to exist as a self-determining nation. Citizens elect whether their countries should enter a union. You can’t just take stuff from people: No taxation without representation, remember?

You say you live in Ontario and are an English Quebecer separatist.  That makes you one of a kind because it’s quite an implausible combination of traits. Go ahead and try to explain your perspective.  Canadians are relatively happy and proud of the country, among the happiest in the world.  The country rates high in many surveys, such as the Human Development Index and happiness indices.

Criticize all you like but most Canadians see our problems as solvable and specific.  I suggest bringing solutions on that basis. Your sledgehammer approach, especially as it doesn’t seem to present plausible solutions, doesn’t look advantageous. 

Draw conclusions as you may, but conclusions not supported by logical consistency backed up by evidence are not arguments, those are called opinions, which are inherently unfounded, which brings us back to; "So what?"

In terms of being an Anglo Pequiste, I am not Quebecois, I am British North American, my earliest ancestor which I can trace, jumped ship at Halifax Harbour in 1757 after being press ganged into the Royal Navy to fight the French and Indian component of the Seven Years War.  

I merely support their self determination as per the SCC ruling which states they are entitled to it so long as it by democratic means under the Clarity Act.   And while we are not a large cohort, yet, I am not alone and we are not disorganized. 

"Most Canadians" is not only fallacious circular logic, we don't actually need most Canadians, we just need a tiny little percentage of them in certain ridings in Quebec

Edited by Dougie93

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 minutes ago, Dougie93 said:

Draw conclusions as you may, but conclusions not supported by logical consistency backed up by evidence are not arguments, those are called opinions, which are inherently unfounded, which brings us back to; "So what?"

In terms of being an Anglo Pequiste, I am not Quebecois, I am British North American, my earliest ancestor which I can trace, jumped ship at Halifax Harbour in 1757 after being press ganged into the Royal Navy to fight the French and Indian component of the Seven Years War.  

I merely support their self determination as per the SCC ruling which states they are entitled to it so long as it by democratic means under the Clarity Act.   And while we are not a large cohort, yet, I am not alone and we are not disorganized. 

"Most Canadians" is not only fallacious circular logic, we don't actually need most Canadians, we just need a tiny little percentage of them in certain ridings in Quebec

So your ancestor was pressed into the British military, yet you’re a monarchist, yet you feel attachment to early Pre-Confederation Nova Scotians, yet you like the freedoms in Canada, yet you think it’s a failed state.  You think it’s failed because we have a small military that you think we should dismantle rather than build up.  You also don’t see value in NATO for Canada or the US.  It’s hard not to think that you want to abandon the indigenous through de-Confederation and make the newly independent provinces ripe for integration into the US.  That’s the only thread I can follow.  Why would the provinces risk being overwhelmed by the much larger US?  That’s a prelude to statehood, your real endgame.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I see a value in NATO, I was after all a Cold Warrior,  I'm pro-NATO, not to go adventuring,  chasing terrorists down rabbit holes, but Mr. Ivan must be deterred on the trace in Europe,  whether that trace be on the Inner German border or as it is now the Inner Ukrainian border, whether he's under Soviet colours or Russian, because if he crosses the Article V line, and the crisis were to break NATO under the pressure of it, it's still gonna be World War Three at the brink of a strategic thermonuclear exchange.

Canada tho, would have no particular influence, because while she was a serious player when I was serving NATO, Canada  now is functionally disarmed for all intents and purposes above the limited tactical level, and doesn't have a logistics tail for the pathetically dilapidated tactical only force it has now.

Edited by Dougie93

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Dougie93 said:

I see a value in NATO, I was after all a Cold Warrior,  I'm pro-NATO, not to go adventuring,  chasing terrorists down rabbit holes, but Mr. Ivan must be deterred on the trace in Europe,  whether that trace be on the Inner German border or as it is now the Inner Ukrainian border, whether he's under Soviet colours or Russian, because even if the crisis were to break NATO under the pressure of it, it's still gonna be World War Three at the brink of a strategic thermonuclear exchange.

Canada tho, would have no particular influence, because while she was a serious player when I was serving NATO, Canada  now is functionally disarmed for all intents and purposes above the limited tactical level, and doesn't have a logistics tail for the pathetically dilapidated tactical only force it has now.

So strengthen the Canadian military. To go the other way is to undermine NATO.  Trump also has to stop criticizing NATO. The US going it alone would have a hard time dealing with both China and Russia. Europe matters and so does Canada in the opposition to threats. Canada is a growing territory with soft power that can play that PR, rebuilding and peacekeeping role for NATO and the US.  What’s more, in some ways Trudeau Jr. to China is like Trudeau Sr. was to the Soviets/Cuba.  There’s an opening in Canada to China that the US doesn’t want to see widen.  It could widen. More belligerence from POTUS towards Canada can only widen it. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, Zeitgeist said:

So strengthen the Canadian military. To go the other way is to undermine NATO.  Trump also has to stop criticizing NATO. The US going it alone would have a hard time dealing with both China and Russia. Europe matters and so does Canada in the opposition to threats. Canada is a growing territory with soft power that can play that PR, rebuilding and peacekeeping role for NATO and the US.  What’s more, in some ways Trudeau Jr. to China is like Trudeau Sr. was to the Soviets/Cuba.  There’s an opening in Canada to China that the US doesn’t want to see widen.  It could widen. More belligerence from POTUS towards Canada can only widen it. 

Can't strengthen the military, due to dysfunctional failed Confederation,  because one the many dysfunctions of Canadian Confederation is that the regions where support for the military is high, are demographically boxed out by the regions where they don't want a military at all,  because those regions are fundamentally Marxist socialist and so view the military as simply being pawns of American Imperialism, and those people control the agenda of the country, by way of the leverage they have over everybody else in Confederation.

NATO undermines itself by having too many countries like Canada, otherwise known as the Free Riders, Trump is merely stating the truth of it, causing the liberal media to go hysterical.

Trump doesn't have to stop criticizing NATO, he is the American Commander-in-Chief, NATO belongs to him, NATO Supreme Headquarters Allied Powers Europe (SHAPE) at Brussels Belgium, commands all NATO forces under the Supreme Allied Commander Europe (SACEUR) General Curtis M.Scaparotti, and General Scaparotti reports directly from there, to Donald Trump.

Canada is irrelevant, but part of the Canadian Disease is that Canadians have a delusional sense of their importance, or rather total lack thereof, and you clearly have the Canadian Disease, although I used to as well, so it can be cured, you're probably just young,  idealistic and naive. Which is fine, but it's delusional.

All POTUS's are hostile to some degree or another, but Obama was actually more hostile in real terms, because Obama made more actual policies which harmed Canadian interests.  Not my interests mind you, harmed the interests of Confederation, which I of course no longer defend nor uphold and are now rather actively working to undermine by any and all legal means.

The Americans are going to continue to freeze Canada out, because this is not about Trump, you are inside of a revolution right now, the Information Revolution, just as people in the 19th century people were cuaght up in the Industrial Revolution, so nothing will ever be the same as it was, it's never going back to business as usual, because business is changing, from Industrial Age business into Information Age business, what you are experiencing is simply the buffeting of the forces as they rip the old world down and transition into a new world, again, as they did in the 19th century going from agrarian to industrial.

Edited by Dougie93

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Just FYI,  in the event of World War Three, Canada only serves one role; Canada is No Mans Land.  

As the war is not really Transatlantic, it's over the Pole, with Canada sitting right in the middle.  

This was always Canada's role in the event of World War Three, which is another reason there isn't much support for having an actual fighting military, because in the event of war,  Canada will not be in the fight, so much as Canada will simply be wiped off the map in a thermonuclear firestorm.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
33 minutes ago, Dougie93 said:

Can't strengthen the military, due to dysfunctional failed Confederation,  because one the many dysfunctions of Canadian Confederation is that the regions where support for the military is high, are demographically boxed out by the regions where they don't want a military at all,  because those regions are fundamentally Marxist socialist and so view the military as simply being pawns of American Imperialism, and those people control the agenda of the country, by way of the leverage they have over everybody else in Confederation.

NATO undermines itself by having too many countries like Canada, otherwise known as the Free Riders, Trump is merely stating the truth of it, causing the liberal media to go hysterical.

Trump doesn't have to stop criticiing NATO, he is the American Commander-in-Chief, NATO belongs to him, NATO Supreme Headquaters Allied Powers Europe (SHAPE) at Brussels Belgium, commands all NATO forces under the Supreme Allied Commander Europe (SACUER) General Curtis M.Scaparotti, and General Scaparotti reports directly from there, to Donald Trump.

Canada is irrelevant, but part of the Canadian Disease is that Canadians have a delusional sense of their importance, or rather total lack thereof, and you clearly have the Canadian Disease, although I used to as well, so it can be cured, you're probably just young,  idealistic and naive. Which is fine, but it's delusional.

All POTUS's are hostile to some degree or another, but Obama was actually more hostile in real terms, because Obama made more actual policies which harmed Canadian interests.  Not my interests mind you, harmed the interests of Confderation, which I of course no longer defend nor uphold and are now rather actively working to undermine by any and all legal means.

The Americans are going to continue to freeze Canada out, because this is not about Trump, you are inside of a revolutuon right now, the Information Revolution, just as people in the 19th century people were cuaght up in the Industrial Revolution, so nothing will ever be the same as it was, it's never going back to business as usual, because business is changing, from Industrial Age business into Information Age business, what you are experiencing is simply the buffeting of the forces as they rip the old world down and transition into a new world, again, as they did in the 19th century going from agrarian to industrial.

I totally disagree with your take on Canada, because I see your perspective as American Republican, a force that will soon get a reckoning.  It may be much more radical than most Republican perspectives.  I’m going to turn your view completely upside down.  Though it’s scary for older generations to recognize, Trudeau was onto something when he called Canada the first post-national country.  Richard Florida understands this as well.  The educated “creative class” who are the nouveau elite shop around internationally for city regions to live in.  They can work anywhere and are very savvy.  What interests them?  Clean, high tech, safe, diverse regions with high quality of life.  On that score Canadian cities do superbly. Of the top ten most liveable cities, Canadian cities score consistently high.  Vancouver and Toronto  are often in the top three.  Nation states and military blocks seem very old worldly to Millennials.  

I believe the future is loose economic and political unions of states.  I still think eliminating the nation state is dangerous and risks Balkanization.  It makes smaller states vulnerable to belligerent and aggressive larger powers.  I believe the best endgame for Canada is opening up and expanding relations and trade with as many countries as possible, including Russia and China, yet keep our traditional alliances as a bulwark for security, democracy, and progress.  We ally ourselves with countries that share our priorities.  

The truth is that while we have a smaller society and military than our southern neighbor, I believe we have a safer, healthier, less polarized society.  Joining the US means compromising that. As we grow I believe that eventually our strengths will be too hard to ignore. Canada may be the freest country.  Protect it.  If it’s in our interests to become more integrated with the US, the Canadian way should play an important role or it probably isn’t worth it. In any event, that’s for the peoples of both countries to negotiate if it comes to that.  

Edited by Zeitgeist

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 minutes ago, Dougie93 said:

Just FYI,  in the event of World War Three, Canada only serves one role; Canada is No Mans Land.  

As the war is not really Transatlantic, it's over the Pole, with Canada sitting right in the middle.  

This was always Canada's role in the event of World War Three, which is another reason there isn't much support for having an actual fighting military, because in the event of war,  Canada will not be in the fight, so much as Canada will simply be wiped off the map in a thermonuclear firestorm.

Well you’re dating yourself here.  World War Three is unlikely in the foreseeable future and there are no strategic targets in the Canadian North.  The populous areas in southern Canada would be impacted like most US cities if such an all out war were to occur and there’d be few survivors in any urban areas of warring countries. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, Zeitgeist said:

I totally disagree with your take on Canada, because I see your perspective as American Republican, a force that will soon get a reckoning.  I’m going to turn your view completely upside down.  Though it’s scary for older generations to recognize, Trudeau was onto something when he called Canada the first post-national country.  Richard Florida understands this as well.  The educated “creative class” who are the nouveau elite shop around internationally for city regions to live in.  They can work anywhere and are very savvy.  What interests them?  Clean, high tech, safe, diverse regions with high quality of life.  On that score Canadian cities do superbly. Of the top ten most liveable cities, Canadian cities score consistently high.  Vancouver and Toronto  are often in the top three.  Nation states and military blocks seem very old worldly to Millennials.  

I believe the future is loose economic and political unions of states.  I still think eliminating the nation state is dangerous and risks Balkanization.  It makes smaller states vulnerable to belligerent and aggressive larger powers.  I believe the best endgame for Canada is opening up and expanding relations and trade with as many countries as possible, including Russia and China, yet keep our traditional alliances as a bulwark for security, democracy, and progress.  We ally ourselves with countries that share our priorities.  

The truth is that while we have a smaller society and military than our southern neighbor, I believe we have a safer, healthier, less polarized society.  Joining the US means compromising that. As we grow I believe that eventually our strengths will be too hard to ignore. Canada may be the freest country.  Protect it.  If it’s in our interests to become more integrated with the US, the Canadian way should play an important role or it probably isn’t worth it. In any event, that’s for the peoples of both countries to negotiate if it comes to that.  

You're welcome to your opinion of course, and as I've said, we Pequistes are simply lying in wait husbanding our resources for when the next referendum comes, but we don't need you, so I'm not trying to convince you of anything, I'm not trying to recruit to be Pequistes, that's the beauty of it, Confederation is going to bring itself down, by giving we Pequistes the constitutional right to leave Confederation, and by being so dysfunctional now, far more dysfunctional that it was at the time of the last referendum, and that very dysfunction is going to be the thing that puts us over the top. . . and out of this abomination at the next referendum, vive le Quebec, vive le Quebec libre.

I will of course continue to defend my Commander-in-Chief, when Quebec leaves they will be a republic, but as that tears the country apart, we here in Upper Canada will be free, and we're not getting rid of the Queen.  More likely King by the time this goes down, because it's not going to happen tomorrow obviously.   But we are patient, this is a long term project, we are laying the groundwork now for things to come in the next decade or so.

Because this Information Age revolution is picking up pace now, the industrial work is really starting to go away (which is why I am also a member of the Anti-Work Movement, conservative wing) and as these industrial workers all start to lose their work, revolutionary forces will be in play, which will only hasten the downfall of this Failed State Zombie Confederation. 

This process has already begun, with Alberta industrial workers fighting BC Information workers, over pipelines and the oil sands vs. Climate Change urban Knowledge Economy elites.   That is the Information Age revolution habbening. 

Same thing with Trump, because the revolution was that out of work industrial workers in the rust belt flipped from the Democrats to Trump, which is the only way he could have won.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 minutes ago, Zeitgeist said:

....The truth is that while we have a smaller society and military than our southern neighbor, I believe we have a safer, healthier, less polarized society.  Joining the US means compromising that. As we grow I believe that eventually our strengths will be too hard to ignore. Canada may be the freest country.  Protect it.  If it’s in our interests to become more integrated with the US, the Canadian way should play an important role or it probably isn’t worth it. In any event, that’s for the peoples of both countries to negotiate if it comes to that.  

 

How do you reconcile this position when it exists concurrent with being highly integrated with the U.S. economy and geo-political policies, including military treaties.   Would Canada be such a "paradise" without such ties and dependencies ?    The U.S. is already far more diversified for trade with China, so that can't be the difference.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Zeitgeist said:

Well you’re dating yourself here.  World War Three is unlikely in the foreseeable future and there are no strategic targets in the Canadian North.  The populous areas in southern Canada would be impacted like most US cities if such an all out war were to occur and there’d be few survivors in any urban areas of warring countries. 

Probability is not stable, can shift precipitously, is shifting as we speak, in the direction of the ever more likely.

Edited by Dougie93

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

×