Military spending at highest point since WWII
jeff744 @ Thu Mar 10, 2011 11:09 am
BartSimpson BartSimpson:
jeff744 jeff744:
And yet you completely ignore the obvious upgrades that would occur to make it stay faster and highers than the things trying to shoot it down.
Look, even the US Congress finally retired the U2 and the SR71 when they were told we had better ways of doing recon as opposed to using 50 year old planes just because members of Congress were fond of them.
I know the Arrow was a smack in Canadian pride, but move on, okay? Instead of making proposals that literally mean building a 1953 aircraft today, how about investing in a 2011 designed Canadian fighter...hmmm?
I never said that, I was stating it could, I am very well aware of the difficulties it would face had it stayed and the fact it will not be coming back.
BartSimpson @ Thu Mar 10, 2011 11:14 am
jeff744 jeff744:
No, I want to be able to know that I can still go to a functioning hospital with more than one doctor because we needed to have a bigger army than China.
Then why not just completely disarm and put them money into navel gazing health care?
jeff744 @ Thu Mar 10, 2011 11:19 am
BartSimpson BartSimpson:
jeff744 jeff744:
No, I want to be able to know that I can still go to a functioning hospital with more than one doctor because we needed to have a bigger army than China.
Then why not just completely disarm and put them money into navel gazing health care?
Because while I understand the need for defense spending (hell, I want more, but money doesn't grow on trees) but I also understand that defense should not come before the spending on people. There is a tone of money that is being wasted, I defend clearing up this crap (like 9/10ths of Healthcare administration and other bureaucracy can be cut) and using that freed money for the military. Hell, I call for legalizing pot so the revenue can go to healthcare and freed up money can go to defense.
BartSimpson @ Thu Mar 10, 2011 11:29 am
jeff744 jeff744:
... and freed up money can go to defense.
Meaning defense is the last thing you care about. Fine, you're entitled to your opinion.
But here's a question, would you do business with a bank that operated the same way you want your country to operate?
Jeff's Bank Jeff's Bank:
When we divvy up operating expenses we make sure that security is our last concern because we've got more important things than security to worry about.
Would you do business with them? Why or why not?
jeff744 @ Thu Mar 10, 2011 11:32 am
Depends, is this bank also so large no bank robbers could occupy it and is it also located next to a major police HQ?
BartSimpson @ Thu Mar 10, 2011 11:33 am
jeff744 jeff744:
Depends, is this bank also so large no bank robbers could occupy it and is it also located next to a major police HQ?
How about just answer the question I posed and not the question you'd be more comfortable with?
jeff744 @ Thu Mar 10, 2011 11:35 am
BartSimpson BartSimpson:
jeff744 jeff744:
Depends, is this bank also so large no bank robbers could occupy it and is it also located next to a major police HQ?
How about just answer the question I posed and not the question you'd be more comfortable with?
Considering how high their interest rates would be, yup. Plus they would at least have the basics for security and would be located in a rural region with a small amount of money in comparison to other banks.
Guy_Fawkes @ Thu Mar 10, 2011 11:40 am
jeff744 jeff744:
Depends, is this bank also so large no bank robbers could occupy it and is it also located next to a major police HQ?
Oh wow your one of those people, who feels we should let the United States protect us.
jeff744 @ Thu Mar 10, 2011 11:44 am
Guy_Fawkes Guy_Fawkes:
jeff744 jeff744:
Depends, is this bank also so large no bank robbers could occupy it and is it also located next to a major police HQ?
Oh wow your one of those people, who feels we should let the United States protect us.
No, I feel that our size and the fact there is a close ally nearby would deter most people considering they would have to fight their way across one of the three largest nations on earth (two is the US gets involved). I am one of the people that don't see why defense requires us to send large numbers of troops to invade countries when the people should be the ones running it.
Guy_Fawkes @ Thu Mar 10, 2011 11:49 am
Ah we are too big to fail, gotcha. 
So we should sit back and let the adults handle issues beyond our boarders, screw our allies in NATO, we have homeless we need to think about! Im guessing your one of the "CANADIANS ARE PEACEKEEPERS!" crowd. Im also going to guess you never thought about what Afghanistan would look like if Canada never helped its allies in NATO.
jeff744 @ Thu Mar 10, 2011 11:53 am
Guy_Fawkes Guy_Fawkes:
Ah we are too big to fail, gotcha.
So we should sit back and let the adults handle issues beyond our boarders, screw our allies in NATO, we have homeless we need to think about! Im guessing your one of the "CANADIANS ARE PEACEKEEPERS!" crowd. Im also going to guess you never thought about what Afghanistan would look like if Canada never helped its allies in NATO.
So we should sit back and let the adults handle issues beyond our boarders, screw our allies in NATO, we have homeless we need to think about! Im guessing your one of the "CANADIANS ARE PEACEKEEPERS!" crowd. Im also going to guess you never thought about what Afghanistan would look like if Canada never helped its allies in NATO.
Since when was it NATO's job to start invading sovereign countries? Wait, I forgot, it was practically born for it. I'm in the crowd that wants to let the people of their nations fix it, we should only help nations where the people are actually asking for our help, not where we think they might want it. I wonder what Afghanistan would look like if the US had actually helped to rebuild it after they helped them fight the soviets.
BartSimpson @ Thu Mar 10, 2011 11:56 am
jeff744 jeff744:
No, I feel that our size and the fact there is a close ally nearby would deter most people considering they would have to fight their way across one of the three largest nations on earth (two is the US gets involved). I am one of the people that don't see why defense requires us to send large numbers of troops to invade countries when the people should be the ones running it.
Well, one thing I am taking away from your posts is a proper answer to Gunnair's repeated posts where he's upset about why an American should have any voice on a Canadian forum about Canadian issues.
Since, by deliberate design on the part of Canadians, I'm subsidizing your national defense then I've every right in the world to speak about your internal affairs.
That or you folks need to start writing us a check to pay for your defense.
jeff744 @ Thu Mar 10, 2011 11:58 am
BartSimpson BartSimpson:
jeff744 jeff744:
No, I feel that our size and the fact there is a close ally nearby would deter most people considering they would have to fight their way across one of the three largest nations on earth (two is the US gets involved). I am one of the people that don't see why defense requires us to send large numbers of troops to invade countries when the people should be the ones running it.
Well, one thing I am taking away from your posts is a proper answer to Gunnair's repeated posts where he's upset about why an American should have any voice on a Canadian forum about Canadian issues.
Since, by deliberate design on the part of Canadians, I'm subsidizing your national defense then I've every right in the world to speak about your internal affairs.
That or you folks need to start writing us a check to pay for your defense.
By the same logic all of your allies should, and all their allies should to them, etc.
PublicAnimalNo9 @ Thu Mar 10, 2011 11:59 am
My offer to lend you guys 10 bucks still stands 
Guy_Fawkes @ Thu Mar 10, 2011 12:00 pm
Right because the democratic (however loosely) Afghani government want Canada to leave. After the Talbian was ousted, Canada was asked by the government in power to help stabilize the area. Canada did A LOT of good in Afghanistan, something that would not have been possible if we still had a military with a promotion freeze.