I'll believe it when I see it.
The full sentence is "Stay safe or pay child support for at least two decades".
Have you not heard of radon gas? Your home could be a death-trap.Statistically the only way to truly stay safe is to lock yourself in your own house. Telling someone to ‘stay safe’ is the equivalent of doing your part for X cause that does absolutely nothing in larger terms, but it makes you feel better about yourself. Extra points if you post it to social media to validate yourself.
That is a ridiculous reduction to the absurd...
"Stay safe" is no different than saying "drive safe" when someone heads out on a road trip... It's someone reminding you that a) they care b) they want you to make smart choices to protect yourself.
I get that politics can be all consuming, but this is the silliest thing I have read in a long time.
The only thing colder than absolute zero, is internet cool dudes.The stay safe and drive safe people are the same Karen’s who write policies that cater to the lowest common denominator instead of letting Darwinism cull the herd.
“Drive safe” is another stupid comment, like hearing that will make any difference in the outcome of anything. These safe sayings are on par with “are you having fun yet” or “sounds like you have the case of the Monday's.”
To get back on topic, no, Trudeau won’t be increasing spending. Why would he when Canadians don’t care?
Challice said that the high casualty rate is the consequence of a Russian advantage in artillery coverage. “The way war works right now with drones, is that they (Ukrainian troops) get sent into spot A to draw fire from artillery and tanks, while other teams get into position to locate and destroy. So, you’ve got to give people to get into position. It’s unfortunate but it is the only logical way to push forward.
“With these drones, you can’t hide. There’s no cover, especially at this time of the year when there’s no tree cover and no heat thermal cover.”
I want to be radical and deeply unfashionable by talking up a few things. We should be proud of the UK’s response.
I am grateful for bold action by ministers, a united parliament and responsible opposition politicians who have accepted briefings under Privy Council rules and abided by them.
The sense of unity and cohesion across the political spectrum is a source of strength at a time when our democratic values are being tested internationally.
The Government has made Ukraine a priority, in funds but also through National Security Council meetings, through Prime Ministerial time – with all three of them – and even some four or five dedicated Cabinet meetings at the outset.
That attitude has been matched by our media: brave people going to the front line in the best traditions to tell astonishing stories. And we have all benefitted from the thoughtfulness of commentators, speed of analysis and the ubiquitous access to these views. Thank you, and especially to many of you here.
That backdrop has been further supplemented by our magnificent intelligence community. Defence Intelligence and GCHQ, alongside American NSA colleagues, cued us at the very beginning and provided remarkably accurate windows into plans and psyche all the way through.
People ask does it make a difference? Absolutely. And we have been able to spike guns, prepare plans and galvanise allies. Similarly, MI5 have been essential in keeping the home base safe at a point of tension. And, yes, MI6 do provide an astonishing array of insights and opportunities. Thank you to all in the UK Intelligence Community.
We should also be proud we were the first European country to supply lethal aid. We have gifted almost 200 armoured vehicles and more than 10,000 anti-tank missiles to Ukraine. Over a hundred thousand rounds of artillery ammunition.
Now, as the year ends, nearly 10,000 Ukrainian troops have been trained on British soil in an effort that includes Sweden, Finland, Denmark, Norway, Lithuania, the Netherlands, Canada, New Zealand and, from next month, Australia.
This is significant. Ukraine’s fight is our fight. We support Ukraine because we share their belief in the rule of law and the simple conviction that aggression must not pay.
And this poses a series of questions which the IR Refresh will seek to answer:
These are serious questions. And I welcome the Government’s willingness and seriousness to undertake the answers.
- How do we manage a weaker but more vindictive Russia over the long term?
- Are we going to remain committed to a global outlook?
- And if so, how much do we invest?
One view for the IR Refresh is that we will draw on the tenets of our traditional way of warfare:
There is something very British about our approach to having the bomb: almost mild embarrassment. And yet perhaps one of the starkest lessons of the past year has been our extended nuclear deterrence. It has protected us and our Allies, allowing us to resist coercion and continue to do what is right. A reminder that nuclear and conventional deterrence are linked.
- The belief that Britain is an expeditionary rather than a continental power.
- That our interests are best served through the indirect application of power by, with, and through our partners.
- That our operational advantage comes not from the mass but through disproportionate effect.
- And that we do not shy away from our status as a permanent member of the UN Security Council, a nuclear power with global responsibilities and the 6th largest economy in the world.
And in the same way, the notion that you can separate security in Europe from security in the Pacific seems difficult - especially if you happen to be a global trading nation with a permanent seat on the UN Security Council.
They’ll only be suspicious for a bit longer until they realize that they are the first post-nation state that has handed itself over practically to a still-nation state…Canadians remain:
- Suspicious of the USA;
- Attracted to socialist ideas; and
- Unwilling to spend on anything but their own entitlements.
Apologies in advance for the typos. And this is another Geezer Eruption.
I know I'm repeating myself, but there is no point in dreaming about Canadian defence budget increases unless and until there is aa absolutely HUGE shift in Canadian public opinion.
In 1947, George Kennan, using there pseudonym X published a version of his now famous 'long telegram' in Foreign Affairs; also in 1947 Canadian Foreign Minister Louis St Laurent outlined his plan for Canada to be a leading middle power; in 1948 The USSR tried to seize Berlin by blockade, confirming Kennan's thesis; in 1949 the Soviet Union successfully exploded its own atomic bomb. All these events were widely reported in Canada's newspapers, on the radio (TV was in its infancy) and in movie theatres where "newsreels" were always shown and updated on a regular basis.
By the time North Korea invaded its southern neighbour in 1950, Canadians were:
Until Canadians are, once again, well informed and conscious of the need to be prepared for war the Canadian Armed Forces are worth little more than the Ceremonial Guard and the Snowbirds.
- Well informed; and
- Very conscious of the price of being unprepared - 1939 was less than a dozen years and 40,000+ fresh margraves in the past.
It is the job of politicians, the media and the "chattering classes" (I call them the commentariat) to sound the alarm as Churchill, aided by a handful of newspapers (notably the Daily Telegraph and the Daily Express) did in the 1930s. Do we have a Churchill in Canada in the 2020s? It certainly doesn't seem, to me to be Pierre Poilievre. Is there even one modern Canadian equivalent to the Daily Telegraph and the Daily Express? I don't see that sort of commentary in e.g. the Globe and Mail or the Sun chain of papers.
By 1968, only 20 years after St Laurent's Gray Lecture at the University of Toronto, Canadians were growing tired of paying the price of leadership. They could see the modern welfare state growing in America and Europe and when Pierre Trudeau rejected St Laurent's (and Diefenbaker's and Pearson's) vision and told us that the "Land is Strong" and could/would somehow look after us as we were entitled, a solid majority of us agreed. Pierre Trudeau had his own ax to grind with the Canadian military and the whole notion of a US-led West that relied upon military alliances but, mainly, he and his Liberal Party sold us on the notions that:
Nothing much changed in the intervening 50+ years since Trudeau's 'Foreign Policy for Canadians.'
- The threat was NOT just Soviet communism; and
- We could and should do less to make the armed race a reality.
Canadians remain:
They see no real threat, but ...
- Suspicious of the USA;
- Attracted to socialist ideas; and
- Unwilling to spend on anything but their own entitlements.
Let's be serious - until they notice* that the country's approaches are protected by American flags, they won't be suspicious at all.They’ll only be suspicious for a bit longer until they realize that they are the first post-nation state that has handed itself over practically to a still-nation state…
Let's be serious - until they notice* that the country's approaches are protected by American flags, they won't be suspicious at all.
* and let's be serious (again), it would take a "Rotational Force - Canada" like what the USMC is doing in Darwin, Australia to make most people wonder why the US has a "base" here.
Paul Martin said “the minority shall not be dictated to by the majority “.Canada has become the political equivalent of an overbearing mother-in-law, smugly telling people how they ought to live. Her likes are mandatory; her dislikes are forbidden. There cannot be social peace in a country while a bare majority or mere plurality directs a substantial but smaller fraction to change to suit the former. Tolerance means putting up with sh!t. Progressives are intolerant.
But it's not new. Back in the late a940s/early '50s the US Secretary of State Dean Acheson complained about Canadian diplomats being like "the stern daughters of the voice of God" (a reference to an 18th century hymn by Wordsworth) as they castigated America and Britain for not being as "nice" as th Canadians thought possible. (I'm away, but the anecdote is in his book "Present at the Creation".)Canada has become the political equivalent of an overbearing mother-in-law, smugly telling people how they ought to live. Her likes are mandatory; her dislikes are forbidden. There cannot be social peace in a country while a bare majority or mere plurality directs a substantial but smaller fraction to change to suit the former. Tolerance means putting up with sh!t. Progressives are intolerant.