- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 210
What he said.
Michael OLeary said:And which particular points would you like to see debated; the tactical options?, the legality?, the government to be instituted in its place? And to what end?
mo-litia said:.
As to instituting a gov't in in place - I don't feel there would be a need to ever subvert the democratic process in this county. However a constitutional amendment ensuring that our military must always be able to adequately defend our territory would be enough to make the average Canadian sleep well at night, regardless of the stupidity of future generations of politicians.
aesop081 said:The why don't you enlighten us as to what the military should be to adequately defend this country...be specific please....and also, how do you propose to fund it , sustain it, recruit for it.....
Michael OLeary said:In order to help you make your case for discussion, perhaps you could enlighten us as to what proof you have that the average Canadian isn't sleeping well at night because of his concern that defence is underfunded.
mo-litia said:I feel that Canada's military should be able to totally defend Canada's population centres and be able to rapidly mobilize to protect our interests in our underpopulated areas. It would not bankrupt the country to maintain a force that is capable of meeting these requirements.
Michael OLeary said:In order to help you make your case for discussion, perhaps you could enlighten us as to what proof you have that the average Canadian isn't sleeping well at night because of his concern that defence is underfunded.
mo-litia said:. .. look two posts above your last for my reply to your question
48Highlander said:How in the heck did this thread get this long. I was sure it'd die a lonely death after the fifth post or so...
mo-litia said:I know that the average WESTERN Canadian has grave misgivings with the state of the CF. I would hope that those from more, shall we say, enlightened areas of the country will be able to recognize this state of affairs for the serious problem that it is . . .
48Highlander said:How in the heck did this thread get this long. I was sure it'd die a lonely death after the fifth post or so...
aesop081 said:I asked you for specifics not a general " i don't have an answer " statement. You have stated that the CF as they are now are inadequate to defend this country. What i would like to hear from you is what would be adequte ????? What type of troops...how many...what kind of ships palenes...bases.....etc...
mo-litia said:I have to allow that it would be better left up to the generals to come up with a complete defence plan for this nation. But I hope you are not trying to insinuate that 80 fighter aircraft and an army smaller than the New York City Police Department can actually defend this great nation to the degree that it deserves . . .
m_a_r_c said:trea ·son (trzn) n.
Violation of allegiance toward one's country or sovereign, especially the betrayal of one's country by waging war against it or by consciously and purposely acting to aid its enemies.
A betrayal of trust or confidence.
I find it rather odd that you want the Prime Minister of our country for treason, when as a soldier your comments look alot like they could be interpreted as treason, im pretty sure i saw somewhere in either the QR&O's, or the CFAO's or similar documents stating the fact that your not publicly allowed to state your opinion about the government...correct me if im wrong.