To be clear, you think there would be an actual war with any safe space to store prisoners? The US would roll over Canada's military in any open conflict, and crush any official bases. Any war would be entirely guerilla warfare, in which case taking prisoners is entirely unrealistic
healthetank
joined 2 years ago
I mean it's a bit on the nose even for Trump - "you're in danger, from us, so we're going to invade you so we won't threaten you anymore".
Beyond that it doesn't matter what we do as a country for military funding/improvements. If the US wants to invade, they will. It's literally impossible for a Country 1/10th the size to defend and win an outright fight. It's the occupation/pacification/integration bit that Canada would fight back on with guerilla warfare and have a chance of keeping them out, but that has nothing to do with military funding/spending
I mean yes, but what are we in danger of? One main reason we've dropped our military numbers, as far as I understand it, is that we don't have any serious enemies that are close to home. Russia invading over the artic has been the only "close" enemy, and even then it's been totally unrealistic for that to occur.
I always appreciate the summarizing articles like this close to elections. Ford in particular plows through scandals like no tomorrow in his first two years, then slows his jets and just putters along near the election, hoping people forget
Sure, sounds great. But it's the same problem that applies to everyone - all you can do is reduce your own impact and hope they do the same.
The article seems to be basically just complaining about China not doing enough, while not proposing any measures to encourage China to reduce their impact, while also failing to note that the manufacturing China is taking produces resources and goods FOR the west. If we don't want to give them our manufacturing jobs, then pass legislation forcing more manufacturing to be done in your own country.
Just saying "no, we should burn fossil fuels because otherwise it's not fair" is a bunch of bullshit.
I think he's hoping to capitalize on the current good press and the fear of what Trump will do to make himself look good and get another 4 years (ie gaining 2 more years).
Just so I can understand your position better, are you against any kind of carbon taxation (ie Cap and trade, etc.), or this one specifically?
FYI they made the Narnia movies from the most interesting and least convoluted boos. Lion witch and wardrobe is book 2, prince Caspian is book 4, and Voyage is book 5. I don't believe they ever planned on doing the rest of the books. Book 1 and 7 both are some heavy allegorical books that probably wouldn't translate well, book 3 has some serious questionable bits that would be seen as pretty racist these days. Book 6 could be decent, but doesn't include the main siblings, so probably less interest from fans of the main actors.
My problem with Ford has never been that he doesn't like Canada, or is a sellout. I honestly just feel like he's a very average small/mid business owner here, who got himself elected and is treating it like he'd run his own business, which is decidedly NOT how a government should be run. He seems to think he can get away with stuff like the Greenbelt development, or push his own viewpoints like the wind turbine cancellations, which are exactly the kind of short sighted/backroom deal I'd expect from a small business person.
That being said, I'd take him over Trump-esque any day.
I work in road construction. I could maybe see this being feasible in highly localized critical areas, but this kind of road method can't become commonplace. Canada just has too many roads.
Maybe a bridge along the DVP in Toronto that always has bad ice accidents, or a major bike arterial path, but the numbers don't make sense for anywhere else. If a road/bridge is truly that bad for accidents, the Municipality is likely cheaper to redesign the approach/descent angles or change the speed limit rather than try this.
I note they don't talk about how much road a 50 or 60 ton system would be able to serve, compared to the Vancouver budget, or what maintenance costs are on a system that size. The article they link to discussing the system costs is specifically looking at the costs of a BTES system for buildings/complexs.
Out of curiosity, what kinds of things would a federal government have done to make you feel this sense of pride you're looking for? Are there any governments anywhere that have accomplished that task?
Very much a stretch, as nothing has happened yet, but according only to the letter of the law, he could fall under the definition of Treason,
(2) Every one commits treason who, in Canada, ... (c) conspires with any person to commit high treason or to do anything mentioned in paragraph (a);
And high treason is defined as:
... (b) levies war against Canada or does any act preparatory thereto; or
(Emphasis mine).
If you really wanted to make the case, Trump's talking about levying war against Canada would be classified as high treason (if he were Canadian).
Literally any communication between Trump and Musk about invading or taking over Canada could be construed as treason. I have a hard time believing they *haven't * talked about it.