Jump to content
Political Discussion Forums

What to do about China


Recommended Posts

19 hours ago, Army Guy said:

Canada does not need a huge military,

 

19 hours ago, Army Guy said:

How can you say it would boost taxes,

 

23 hours ago, Argus said:

The Russians are more than capable of seizing whatever Arctic territory they decide to,

This is my point. The primary purpose of the military is to defend the realm. If it cannot do that, then it is a waste of people and money. 

For the Russians to send an invasion force over the Arctic Ocean would be logistically difficult. If we had a viable military, they would be deterred.

A viable military means having a real navy, carriers, cruisers destroyers etc. It means having sufficient air forces to attain and maintain air superiority. It means having an independent nuclear capability to turn any enemy into a glass plate. That capability should include ERD's  for both stratigic and tactical missions. It means having ground forces with enough armour and infantry to roll over the enemy. It means never having to rely on allies. That is a lesson reinforced by the past four years, but initially learned in 1914-17 and again in 1939-42. I am all for NATO, but I also believe Defence Scheme No. One needs to be updated. 

Having been involved in politics for most of my adult life, I know Canadians love a parade and the stories of Vimy Ridge, but we should never get involved in a mission like Afghanistan unless we can go in full force and focus on the destruction of the enemy. We damaged the Canadian Army there. 

Defence policy means having hundreds of thousands of men training for something that probably won't happen in decades. It means buying aircraft that will be obsolete before they are needed. So you can understand why Canadian taxpayers are reluctant.

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 1.1k
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Posts

This story has nothing and everything to do with Canada. It's about China's over the top response when the general manager of the Houston Rockets tweeted out a simple little support emoji for the peop

Harper actually worked for a living, and rose from the mail room to being an economist - getting his bachelor's and master's while working.  Most of all, he was NOT a goddamned lawyer and as far away

Everything China has exhibited to the world shows it as being far more vicious and brutal to its own people than the US has ever dreamed of doing. Further, while the US once threw its weight around mo

Posted Images

2 minutes ago, blackbird said:

Altai my dear.  No American would want anything to do with spying or terrorist groups in Turkey.  It has no value to Americans.

You have to understand that anyone and everyone who disagrees with or opposes the Turkish government is either a spy or terrorist or both.

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

You have to understand that anyone and everyone who disagrees with or opposes the Turkish government is either a spy or terrorist or both.

 

Aren't they busy threatening the Greeks, anyways?

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Queenmandy85 said:

A viable military means having a real navy, carriers, cruisers destroyers etc. It means having sufficient air forces to attain and maintain air superiority. It means having an independent nuclear capability to turn any enemy into a glass plate. That capability should include ERD's  for both stratigic and tactical missions. It means having ground forces with enough armour and infantry to roll over the enemy.

No, no. All we need is enough people with enough capabilities that Russia could not simply walk in. We're not talking about them taking over Yellowknife anyway. We're talking about ocean area in the Arctic which both we and the Russians have claimed. We don't need carriers and cruisers for that (what is an ERD anyway?)

When Canada was half the size it is now it's military was twice the size of the present one. Which means our military would have to grow to about a quarter million people to have the same size vs population it had in 1980. If we could afford it then, we can afford it now.

1 minute ago, Queenmandy85 said:

Defence policy means having hundreds of thousands of men training for something that probably won't happen in decades. It means buying aircraft that will be obsolete before they are needed. So you can understand why Canadian taxpayers are reluctant.

I  haven't seen much opposition from taxpayers to military spending. The only groups that seem bothered by it are the activists of the Left who want every dollar spent on the poor. The government tends to prefer to spend money on buying votes.

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

 

Aren't they busy threatening the Greeks, anyways?

The Greeks must be terrorists.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Argus said:

The Greeks must be terrorists.

 

Obviously...look what they did to Cyprus. Turned it into a freaking paradise. Can't have that under Islam.

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

what is an ERD anyway?)

Enhanced Radiation Device. It is a neutron "bomb." In 1975, Livermore Labs detonated a "hydrogen" bomb with the explosive force equivalent to one firecracker, according to media reports at the time. In the late '70s, there was a lot of talk about the "neutron bomb." They talked about a bomb that killed people and left buildings intact. 

The ERD is highly versitile in that the is no limit to how small the yield is. The Soviets were considering using the technology in tank shells. A single round could destroy one enemy tank and kill the crews in the tanks near by.

Disclaimer: I do not have the expertise of Army Guy and the others who actually served our country and I defer to them. 

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Queenmandy85 said:

 

 

This is my point. The primary purpose of the military is to defend the realm. If it cannot do that, then it is a waste of people and money. 

For the Russians to send an invasion force over the Arctic Ocean would be logistically difficult. If we had a viable military, they would be deterred.

A viable military means having a real navy, carriers, cruisers destroyers etc. It means having sufficient air forces to attain and maintain air superiority. It means having an independent nuclear capability to turn any enemy into a glass plate. That capability should include ERD's  for both strategic and tactical missions. It means having ground forces with enough armor and infantry to roll over the enemy. It means never having to rely on allies. That is a lesson reinforced by the past four years, but initially learned in 1914-17 and again in 1939-42. I am all for NATO, but I also believe Defense Scheme No. One needs to be updated. 

Having been involved in politics for most of my adult life, I know Canadians love a parade and the stories of Vimy Ridge, but we should never get involved in a mission like Afghanistan unless we can go in full force and focus on the destruction of the enemy. We damaged the Canadian Army there. 

Defence policy means having hundreds of thousands of men training for something that probably won't happen in decades. It means buying aircraft that will be obsolete before they are needed. So you can understand why Canadian taxpayers are reluctant.

 

It is not that i don't value your opinion, but on this topic i have to disagree 100 %. When most people are asked what is our military for, most if not all will say to defend our nation from foreign invasion , meaning landing craft, tanks and planes coming on shore, and yet DND defends this nation along with 6 or 7 other depts on a daily basis , from cyber attacks, foreign nationals gathering intel on our infra structures, cyber networks, espionage of military and industrial targets, protecting our coast lines from over fishing, drug trafficking's, human smuggling, direct assistance of personal and equipment to RCMP, Fishieres, Coast Guard, Dept of wild life, CSIS, etc  plus anti terror both here domestically and aboard as part of an inter national coalition, DND is also the lead agency in planning or providing manpower and equipment to any domestic natural disaster operation , along with ensuring our sovereignty is maintained on any and all lands or territory claimed to be Canada. "use it or loss it"  ie,  Hanns island, that includes protecting and keeping hostile aircraft out of our airspace, hostile ships out of our waterways, and hostile ground forces off our land...Russians have had forces on Canada's artic more than once, they even left behind Russian rations as if to say ya we were here, f*** ya. 

On top of all that they are also have to provide troops and equipment to UN, NATO, NORAD, and 5 eyes when required. and finally training 2/3 of the military is in some training cycle at all times just to maintain skills and qualifications such as airborne skills , flying low level supply drops, calling in fast air, firing a air to air missiles off a ship at a moving target... these are just some of what DND does on a 24 hours a day 365 days a year, every year no questions asked. 

So it is not all about keeping the Russian and Chinese off our door steps, but ensuring they never get a chance to find our doorstep, by engaging them close to their borders, like Ukraine, and other operations we are involved with right now. you don't need a massive force to do that...

2. Before 1914, At the time, Canada had a regular army of only 3,110 men and a fledgling navy. 

And before WWII: March 1939 the Permanent Active Militia (or Permanent Force (PF), Canada's full-time army) had only 4,169 officers and men while the Non-Permanent Active Militia (Canada's reserve force) numbered 51,418 at the end of 1938, mostly armed with weapons from 1918. In March 1939 the Royal Canadian Navy had 309 officers and 2967 naval ratings, and the Royal Canadian Air Force had 360 officers and 2797 airmen.[11]:2–5

So call lessoned learned from WWI were not exactly learned lessons were they ? And yet there is a cost of not learning these lessons, one was it cost many lives of our young men and women to gain the experience and skills to survive on the battle field, but like Canada today lives are cheap, dime a dozen.... that is until it is your son or daughter then it matters right... The equipment has always been made by the cheapest bidder, a quick look at the Sherman tank will tell you everything you need to know, when German tanks were knocking them out at a rate of 10 to 1 it really sucks for moral, but then again lives are cheap...In this regards we have not learned a thing have we. 

Having a military with all the bells and whistles like nuclear wpns, aircraft carriers, is not the answer for our cheap minded nation, but then again neither is having 3 newfies in a row boat armed with shotguns and calling them destroyers.

Canada needs a conventional force capable of multi tasks at once, one that can be sustained for long periods of time, today we have 3 very undermanned brigades, which at the height of the Afghanistan conflict was not enough to keep soldiers on the ground with out suffering burn out... 6 months training prior to going on operations, 6 to 8 months on operations, and 6 months off to readjust back to normal life... there are a large number of troops that completed 8 to 9 tours in a 10 year period...Ya i know the math does not work out right.. Burn out comes with other problems , a high rate of PTSD, depression , and suicides, again lives are cheap.... top all of this off with cutting of benefits to save some 340 million , throwing vets out into the street when they could no long do everyday tasks , like take a shower, or go to the store for food,...., and the civilian population who for the most part don't give a shit...and you have what i call sensory overload, and the military we have today is the end product of that overload...we don't need a large military machine but we do need more than 65,000 troops in total, some where in the 110,000 mark would be more than enough, I'm no expert but the number is pretty close to what experts have published....in the early 90's we have 95,000 troops until Justins dad slashed it all to shit...

Afghanistan,  Canadians forces where punching way above our heads, in ground forces anyways, we were so effective on the battle field we had requests coming in from the UK and US army and Marines to help them in their  operations, because we were very good at our jobs, closing with and destroying our enemies "killing Terrorists by the bucket loads" .... where we sucked as a nation was support from our government, and our citizens, providing our forces with our own air support, and support . Afghanistan was the perfect war for Canada, it was not about OIL, or minerals, or any other resources that so call experts claimed it was about... experts that had not even stepped foot in the country. This war went from being Canadian to being a Canadian soldiers war, left alone to make it all happen, set up for failure by our country only to stand up and meet every impossible standard the government set. 'WE" did not damage our military in Afghanistan, our Government and citizens did that ...

I want to put some context to some of this the infantry "boots on the ground" there are 3 regiments of regular force Infantry in Canada spread from coast to coast , each regiment has 3 under sized battalions of about 6 to 700 soldiers in each....do the math thats less than 5400 to 6000 soldiers capable of fighting nation wide ... D day there were 14,000 Canadian soldiers landed that day, with more coming in days after, today we would not even get off the beach with all our nations infantry...

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Queenmandy85 said:

Enhanced Radiation Device. It is a neutron "bomb." In 1975, Livermore Labs detonated a "hydrogen" bomb with the explosive force equivalent to one firecracker, according to media reports at the time. In the late '70s, there was a lot of talk about the "neutron bomb." They talked about a bomb that killed people and left buildings intact. 

The ERD is highly versitile in that the is no limit to how small the yield is. The Soviets were considering using the technology in tank shells. A single round could destroy one enemy tank and kill the crews in the tanks near by.

Disclaimer: I do not have the expertise of Army Guy and the others who actually served our country and I defer to them. 

Lots of guys on this forum with more expertise on nukes than i , Bush used to sail on US subs, dog on the porch , or argus have studied the topic more than i, what i do know is what they taught every grunt, nukes are very bad. during the cold war any use of WMD would result in MAD, that included the use of chemical wpns, atleast those you could take precautions and maybe live if you were lucky, but it is a terrible way to die.... Nukes be it inter continental or tactical meant death to everyone in range, either by blast, or fire, or by radiation poisonings or by all three . There are many types of nukes, and ways to deploy them, like air burst, meant to contain damage to target area, but also fry "all" electronics through eltromagnetic pulse, ground burst typical nuke wpn, and then delayed burst meaning more radioactive material thrown up into the air... also nuetron as you mentioned, it still had a blast wave, and massive light , or burn damage, but much reduced... either way, any one caught in the death zones would die.. these zones could be out to the 300 KM ring in some of the bigger blasts or city killers. tactical nukes the death rings could be measured in few KMs either way you would know  when a nuke is used....first the blast , massive amounts of light that sets everything on fire, then the blast wave ...you would be better off at the impact area, than die a slow death from rad poisoning and burns. My opinion...

Mother Russia had lots of soldiers all of them are expendable , so driving or operating in high rad zone was normal practice, and when the unit started dying off they were replaced with another... NATO would atleast make an attempt to avoid, but sometimes that was not possible. Today we have very limited means of operating in or near a rad or chemical wpns zone, due to cuts. 

Edited by Army Guy
  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Queenmandy85 said:

Enhanced Radiation Device. It is a neutron "bomb." In 1975, Livermore Labs detonated a "hydrogen" bomb with the explosive force equivalent to one firecracker, according to media reports at the time. In the late '70s, there was a lot of talk about the "neutron bomb." They talked about a bomb that killed people and left buildings intact. 

The ERD is highly versitile in that the is no limit to how small the yield is. The Soviets were considering using the technology in tank shells. A single round could destroy one enemy tank and kill the crews in the tanks near by.

Disclaimer: I do not have the expertise of Army Guy and the others who actually served our country and I defer to them. 

 

With the N-Bomb, it's all about limiting the blast radius while allowing the free spread of ionizing radiation. So anything to limit the former and boost the latter. Objective: give the casualty a 500 REM dose of the bad stuff. Your house is still standing...but, you're dead in the easy chair. They're particularly dangerous in that I suppose they're tempting to use in a pinch.

Edited by DogOnPorch
Link to post
Share on other sites
39 minutes ago, Army Guy said:

Lots of guys on this forum...

 

Did they ever muse the deployment of a salted device during training...aka the Cobalt Bomb?

Link to post
Share on other sites

A good couple of examples of a deployed neutron based weapon would be the W25 & W40 warheads used on the Genie and Bomarc missiles...both deployed by Canada in the past.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/W25_(nuclear_warhead)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/W40_(nuclear_warhead)

China is full steam ahead in the mobile launcher/solid rocket ICBM program...which is unnerving. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
24 minutes ago, DogOnPorch said:

A good couple of examples of a deployed neutron based weapon would be the W25 & W40 warheads used on the Genie and Bomarc missiles...both deployed by Canada in the past.

 

This point highlights several disadvantages that China faces...the West has several allied nations with more advanced nuclear warhead designs and more accurate delivery systems  that can leverage those designs.   The west also is deploying credible ballistic missile defense systems (with or without Canada).  China is playing catch-up for land, sea, and air capabilities while trying to maintain a very large conventional army to fight a 20th century ground war that dominates its historical experience....transitioning to modern American/Western force structure concepts has not been without problems and limitations. 

China has another nuclear weapons problem...India, which is hell bent on funding and deploying a robust nuclear triad right on China's doorstep. 

Playing superpower with the big boys is not going to be easy...or cheap.  As China confronts such realities, one would expect more interest in arms limitations talks (Chinese pragmatism...not moral debate).

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
On 2/24/2021 at 11:47 AM, blackbird said:

There has to be some form of justice in the world for crimes against humanity, just as there were war crime trials for the Naziis.  Likewise there has to be trade sanctions for countries guilty of crimes against humanity.  We will have to look elsewhere to trade.

If there was, the US of A would be judged to have been the number one criminal in the world at least since the end of WWII....not counting that oopsie - annihilating two Japanese cities to test the new atomic bombs near the end of the War! 

Aside from active engagements causing millions of civilian deaths in Korean and Vietnam wars, the US has handpicked and applied proxy dictators to carry out mass killing operations in Argentina, Chile, Brazil, Columbia (Operation Condor), Congo etc., mostly because they made the mistake of locating their nations above oil and/or great mineral wealth, and had populations who were reluctant to comply with the demands of foreign ownership....so declare them communists and send them off to the liquidation camps. And for some reason, guys like you who can't be bothered reading actual history think it's communists who killed most of the people in the world!

Link to post
Share on other sites

I am not doing well on this topic. Nuclear weapons are a deterrence, but they cannot be used. The US deterrent in the 1970s was weakened when the Soviets started to believe the US would never dare use them. President Reagan set about convincing the Soviets that he was very serious about using them. 

In the early 1970's, I was writing a paper exploring a Warsaw Pact invasion ove wesstern Europe. I attended a seminar with a Canadian Forces senior officer who had recently been the senior Canadian Officer in Norad. I asked him how well NATO would do in a War with the Warsaw Pact including the use of nuclear weapons. He said 90% of the world population would be dead at the end of the first month. The rest would survive another couple of weeks. I abandoned my paper.

Nuclear weapons keep the peace, or so we pray. Wars between India and Pakistan ended when India acquired nuclear weapons. The same with Israel. Stalin, clearly the most evil crazy individual ever to lead a government, had nuclear weapons and even he did not use them. 

As far as Canadian Defence policy is concerned, the contributers above have articulated the situation better than me.

Canada is not able to do anything to influence China on our own. It is frustrating but that is real politique.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Army Guy said:

Lots of guys on this forum with more expertise on nukes than i , Bush used to sail on US subs, dog on the porch , or argus have studied the topic more than i, what i do know is what they taught every grunt, nukes are very bad. during the cold war any use of WMD would result in MAD, that included the use of chemical wpns, atleast those you could take precautions and maybe live if you were lucky, but it is a terrible way to die.... Nukes be it inter continental or tactical meant death to everyone in range, either by blast, or fire, or by radiation poisonings or by all three . There are many types of nukes, and ways to deploy them, like air burst, meant to contain damage to target area, but also fry "all" electronics through eltromagnetic pulse, ground burst typical nuke wpn, and then delayed burst meaning more radioactive material thrown up into the air... also nuetron as you mentioned, it still had a blast wave, and massive light , or burn damage, but much reduced... either way, any one caught in the death zones would die.. these zones could be out to the 300 KM ring in some of the bigger blasts or city killers. tactical nukes the death rings could be measured in few KMs either way you would know  when a nuke is used....first the blast , massive amounts of light that sets everything on fire, then the blast wave ...you would be better off at the impact area, than die a slow death from rad poisoning and burns. My opinion...

Mother Russia had lots of soldiers all of them are expendable , so driving or operating in high rad zone was normal practice, and when the unit started dying off they were replaced with another... NATO would atleast make an attempt to avoid, but sometimes that was not possible. Today we have very limited means of operating in or near a rad or chemical wpns zone, due to cuts. 

How many US vets were sickened and died from exposure to Agent Orange in Vietnam? Great idea, drop chemicals to defoliate an entire jungle so local peasants can't hide, and then spend decades denying that there were any longterm side effects! A more limited version of this were the Burn Pits in Western Iraq, which killed a lot of Americans along with thousands of locals. Dimwit Pres Biden's eldest son being one of the victims!  But Smokin Joe still won't admit it or take responsibility for supporting that and every other US foreign war just to pad his resume a little more.

Link to post
Share on other sites
27 minutes ago, Right To Left said:

How many US vets were sickened and died from exposure to Agent Orange in Vietnam?

 

Agent Orange and other defoliants were also tested and manufactured in Canada.  

...back to China.

Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Queenmandy85 said:

I am not doing well on this topic. Nuclear weapons are a deterrence, but they cannot be used. The US deterrent in the 1970s was weakened when the Soviets started to believe the US would never dare use them. President Reagan set about convincing the Soviets that he was very serious about using them. 

In the early 1970's, I was writing a paper exploring a Warsaw Pact invasion ove wesstern Europe. I attended a seminar with a Canadian Forces senior officer who had recently been the senior Canadian Officer in Norad. I asked him how well NATO would do in a War with the Warsaw Pact including the use of nuclear weapons. He said 90% of the world population would be dead at the end of the first month. The rest would survive another couple of weeks. I abandoned my paper.

Nuclear weapons keep the peace, or so we pray. Wars between India and Pakistan ended when India acquired nuclear weapons. The same with Israel. Stalin, clearly the most evil crazy individual ever to lead a government, had nuclear weapons and even he did not use them. 

As far as Canadian Defence policy is concerned, the contributers above have articulated the situation better than me.

Canada is not able to do anything to influence China on our own. It is frustrating but that is real politique.

I'm quickly coming to the conclusion that you have to be a delusional idiot to "do well" on this topic!  Canada does not and never did have a stick to wield at China. 

The now - 90 year old retired whistleblower - Daniel Ellsberg released what is certain to be his last, and most important book: The Doomsday Machine 3 years ago; mostly compiled from secret notes he had kept from his early days in the 1950's while working for the Pentagon-connected Rand Corporation. It's a shame that MSM is so thoroughly co-opted by the deep state Eisenhower warned about 60 years ago, that aside from a few elite publications, he was unable to spur any widespread interest in his now unclassified work as a designer and game theorist part of the groups who were plotting out nuclear strategies. They weren't aware of biological after-effects like the 'nuclear winter' scenario that could create vast, black clouds of smoke and particles in the upper atmosphere and cause mass extinction of ALL life on the planet. They still knew it would be bad!

And yet the generals and civilian staffers at the Pentagon persisted, and wanted all nuclear scenarios played out: surprise Soviet attacks and even US first strike attacks, which the Pentagon chiefs had determined would have to destroy China, along with the Soviet Union, even though they had only a handful of A-bombs at the time.

In retrospect, considering the studies on atmospheric physics, the massive US first strike, would have precipitated mass human extinction all by itself, even if there were no Soviet missiles launched or bombs dropped! 

The numerous false alerts and aborted launches by both sides over the Cold War years, showed Ellsberg that there were many times when a full blown nuclear war almost occurred just because of computer glitches and operator errors, and could have ended life on this planet, if no one was able to think outside of the box and re-assess plans.  

Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Right To Left said:

Feel free to go ahead and declare war on China! I'll wait right here and have another drink!

 

China doesn't need a war to treat Canada like a chew toy....all it needs is Justin Trudeau.

  • Thanks 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, bush_cheney2004 said:

 

China doesn't need a war to treat Canada like a chew toy....all it needs is Justin Trudeau.

And you think our goofy Conservative opposition leader is going to do any more than spew more hot air. 

My own misgivings about Justin are very similar to the way I assessed Barack Obama... superficial, no core values or goals, and only concerned with his own popularity and polling numbers. 

But Conservadweeb would cause more damage because he represents a rightwing constituency that is determined their leaders need to act like tough guys, even when they would be better off by keeping their mouth's shut!

Link to post
Share on other sites

 Microsoft News has a report from the Canadian Press: 

"OTTAWA — Public Safety Minister Bill Blair says he assumes security authorities signed off on an arrangement to allow a company owned by a Chinese police force to run Canada's visa application centre in Beijing."  ..."Questions have been raised about the centre since The Globe and Mail reported earlier this month that its operation has been subcontracted to Beijing Shuangxiong Foreign Service Company, which is owned by the Beijing Municipal Public Security Bureau."

What is the matter with our government that they would allow such a thing to happen.  They allowed Canada's Visa application centre to be run by police in China which handed it over to another company in China.  Stunning news. What a disaster our government is in not protecting Canadians.

 
 

image.png

Link to post
Share on other sites
54 minutes ago, Right To Left said:

If there was, the US of A would be judged to have been the number one criminal in the world at least since the end of WWII....not counting that oopsie - annihilating two Japanese cities to test the new atomic bombs near the end of the War! 

Aside from active engagements causing millions of civilian deaths in Korean and Vietnam wars, the US has handpicked and applied proxy dictators to carry out mass killing operations in Argentina, Chile, Brazil, Columbia (Operation Condor), Congo etc., mostly because they made the mistake of locating their nations above oil and/or great mineral wealth, and had populations who were reluctant to comply with the demands of foreign ownership....so declare them communists and send them off to the liquidation camps. And for some reason, guys like you who can't be bothered reading actual history think it's communists who killed most of the people in the world!

I don't think so.  Without America there would be no freedom.  We would all be living under either Hitler or Communist rule.  the wars in Korea and Vietnam were to try to fend off the expansion of Communism, especially the Korean war.   Vietnam was more debatable and probably America should not have gone in there.  They lost it and it would have been better to just let N. Vietnam take over S. Vietnam.  But the thinking at the time may have been that the Communists were planning to take over southeast Asia if they were not stopped.  Turned out they never went further than S. Vietnam.  But that was probably because they had no navy and would not be able to cross the water to other southeast countries.  But hindsight is always better than foresight. 

I still believe our freedom and democracy in the west with America leading the defense if far preferable to a Communist dictatorship with no freedom.  Communist countries do not respect human rights or basic freedoms. 

Edited by blackbird
Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, blackbird said:

 Microsoft News has a report from the Canadian Press: 

"OTTAWA — Public Safety Minister Bill Blair says he assumes security authorities signed off on an arrangement to allow a company owned by a Chinese police force to run Canada's visa application centre in Beijing."  ..."Questions have been raised about the centre since The Globe and Mail reported earlier this month that its operation has been subcontracted to Beijing Shuangxiong Foreign Service Company, which is owned by the Beijing Municipal Public Security Bureau."

What is the matter with our government that they would allow such a thing to happen.  They allowed Canada's Visa application centre to be run by police in China which handed it over to another company in China.  Stunning news. What a disaster our government is in not protecting Canadians.

 
 

image.png

Still can't provide links?

Since I don't trust your bible college sources, I looked and found this:  

Conservatives authorized Chinese police-owned company to run visa centre: Blair

When you were quote-mining, you also missed this part at the end of the article:

"It was signed in 2008. So it's been in place for 12 years now and so its origin and who actually authorized this contract predates me or my government and frankly my knowledge."

Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.




  • Tell a friend

    Love Political Discussion Forums? Tell a friend!
×
×
  • Create New...