Welcome to Canada, is that butterknife registered? - Tilted Forum Project Discussion Community

prosequence · 10-21-2003, 06:38 PM

For those not familiar with Canada's efforts to avoid dead people, several years ago, they introduced bill c-68, voila, the Gun Registration Act. Makes it a huge pain in the ass (an expensive pain) to get firearms and ammunition. It was projected to be a 2 mill project but by 2004 will have ballooned to 100 million.

In 2002 there were 149 murders due to fire arms.
There were 182 due to knives/stabbing.

Can we expect a national registry for knives? Will we need a permit to buy cutlery? Maybe they should all have serial numbers and you must be 21 before you can buy one?

Please share your thoughts.

Food Eater Lad · 10-21-2003, 06:40 PM

And dont forget the number of gun deaths also went up since the anti gun bill. So HUGE costs, and more gun deaths. Lets hear it for gun control.

HarmlessRabbit · 10-21-2003, 06:54 PM

Without context it's hard to judge the program. Have violent crimes gone up or down since 2002?

I would think, though, that enforcing that kind of program is really hard given the porous borders with the United States.

What did the $100 million go for? In USA terms, that's a pretty small government program. By comparison, the department of health and human services spent 8 billion dollars on HIV/AIDS programs in 2000.

So, I guess what I'm saying is that there really isn't enough information in your post to judge the program as good or bad. Personally, I think gun registration is a good thing, but I can understand how people distrustful of government would think that gun registration is the first step to stricter gun controls.

SLM3 · 10-21-2003, 07:07 PM

It's really interesting, when you look at how costs rose exponentially for this legislation. Anti gun control advocates went out of their way to make sure costs would rise. Incomplete forms sent in as well as massive amounts of calls to the 1-800 number were all actions organized and carried out by these people. You're right to ask about the context because there's a lot more to this story than many want to admit.

SLM3

popo · 10-21-2003, 07:19 PM

What's amazing is that people see no problem with

1) needing to pass a test and have a licence and have insurance in order to use a transportation vehicle or

2) getting searched at airports for no reason other than the fact that you are travelling,

3) getting randomly stopped to check for DUI,

but when it comes to registering an item fabricated for the sole purpose of killing, their rights are being trampelled on.

Unreal.

Food Eater Lad · 10-21-2003, 07:37 PM

But gun deaths went up after the act, as it did in every place after gun controls were enacted.

popo · 10-21-2003, 07:41 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Food Eater Lad
But gun deaths went up after the act, as it did in every place after gun controls were enacted.

That's because this is a sick gun-obsessed society. There are so many guns in the US circulation that controlling whose hands they fall into is a lost cause.

Food Eater Lad · 10-21-2003, 07:42 PM

So Canada, Australia, and England are gun obessed too? I mean they all had large increases in gun homicide after gun control was enacted too.

popo · 10-21-2003, 08:14 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Food Eater Lad
So Canada, Australia, and England are gun obessed too? I mean they all had large increases in gun homicide after gun control was enacted too.

There's no question that simply registering guns isn't going to stop gun murders and I never suggested as much. But that doesn't mean that it shouldn't be done.

Also, you cannot include countries like Canada, England, Australia in the same thread wrt US gun murders. Apples to apples and such. If you think that there's no problem in the US wrt gun numbers & murders then you are in serious denial in this topic as well.

Tman144 · 10-21-2003, 08:23 PM

Did the % of gun murders go up, or just the number of them? If there were 100 murders, and 12 of them were gun related last year. And this year there were 20 out of 200 murders related to guns, then yes gun murders went up, but there overall impact went down. So does anyone have the percentage? I hope that all makes sense.

TrogDor · 10-21-2003, 08:38 PM

I agree that all countries need control (especially Canada, north of the country with the most gun deaths in the world) but the way they did this was all wrong. They screwed around, not enforcing this gun law strongly, and wasting ALOT of money ( I actually thought it was 1 Billion dollars, rather than 100 million) for something that was supposed to cost two. Way to go liberals!

KnifeMissile · 10-21-2003, 08:45 PM

It's all about balance. On one hand, you have tools that serve a purpose and you want people to be able to use these tools. On the other hand, you have tools that can kill people and you don't want people killed. Our freedom to act is important but so is our freedom to live! How do we balance these things?

We harshly legislate guns 'cause, let's face it, they're made to kill. Sure, you don't have to shoot people with it. Hell, you don't even have to kill with it. You can shoot clay discs just for fun! For this reason, we allow people to own firearms. But, at some fundamental level, it's a tool for killing. Murder is made so easy with these things and, so, we regulate their use so carefully. They are so deadly, you can even kill someone accidentally. When was the last time someone was accidentally killed with a knife?

Speaking of knives, they are so useful that they are ubiquitous. You can't go anywhere without finding one and you can find several of them in every household! Sadly, you can use them to kill people and they don't do a bad job of it, too. However, you can kill with just about anything and you can't legislate it all? Serial killers can kill with a knife but how many mass murders were executed with one?

The fact of the matter is that guns aren't terribly essential to everyday life and can too easily be used to kill a great number of people, while knives are all too useful and aren't nearly as good at killing. Thus, one is highly regulated and the other is not.
Really, lets put things into perspective. Yes, there have been more knife killings than firearm killings (according to the original poster) but considering just how ubiquitous knives are it's amazing how rarely they are used to kill. Guns, by contrast, are quite rare (I haven't seen one in person since 1986, not counting the sidearm holstered by police officers) and, yet, have caused so many deaths?

As an aside, exactly how many more gun deaths were there after bill c-68? The recent number has been so low that I can't imagine that it was all that much. Also, a causal relationship has not been established. All we have is a correlation which could simply be a coincidence. Maybe the population increased? Maybe crime went up those years? Was that caused by bill c-68? I think people jump to conclusions all too easily. An occupational hazard in my profession (a cookie to anyone who can guess what that is!)...

seretogis · 10-21-2003, 09:40 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by popo
What's amazing is that people see no problem with

1) needing to pass a test and have a licence and have insurance in order to use a transportation vehicle or

2) getting searched at airports for no reason other than the fact that you are travelling,

3) getting randomly stopped to check for DUI,

but when it comes to registering an item fabricated for the sole purpose of killing, their rights are being trampelled on.

Unreal.

Owning an automobile is not an American's right, owning a firearm is. I don't have a problem with requiring people to undergo some form of safety training prior to purchasing a handgun (aka a "purchase permit" here in MN), just the random denial of responsible citizens rights to own a gun.

With that note, this thread is about Canada, let's please not bring American politics into it. :P

splck · 10-21-2003, 09:52 PM

The cost is now estimated at 1 billion dollars not 100 million. Just another Liberal party waste of money IMO.

james t kirk · 10-22-2003, 04:45 AM

I guess i really don't have a problem with people registering their guns.

But I DO HATE the fact that it cost billions of dollars. That money could have been far more wisely spent than on an idiotic program that i don't see making our society any better.

I think the military could have used a billion dollars to buy some proper amoured personnel carriers, especially in light of what just happened to those poor bastards in Afghanistan. Watching Chretien up their on the podium reading his speech written by someone else made me want to puke from the shear hypocrisy of it all.

Ustwo · 10-22-2003, 07:46 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by james t kirk
I guess i really don't have a problem with people registering their guns.

But I DO HATE the fact that it cost billions of dollars. That money could have been far more wisely spent than on an idiotic program that i don't see making our society any better.

I think the military could have used a billion dollars to buy some proper amoured personnel carriers, especially in light of what just happened to those poor bastards in Afghanistan. Watching Chretien up their on the podium reading his speech written by someone else made me want to puke from the shear hypocrisy of it all.

How Canada went from having the 3rd largest Navy in the world, and having VERY respectable ground forces, into the 98lbs weakling of today must be an interesting, if sad, story. Since schools in the US basicly ignore Canadan history, I don't know for sure, but I can make a good guess.

OFKU0 · 10-22-2003, 09:04 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by james t kirk

But I DO HATE the fact that it cost billions of dollars Watching Chretien up their on the podium reading his speech written by someone else made me want to puke from the shear hypocrisy of it all.

But don't you just love it every Canada Day when he gives his trademark speech to the masses of sheep who overwhelmingly support him. "H'ide like to say dat in dis country,we are da best country in da world as we continue da devil-up-ment of dis great land. Bonsoir,merci beaucoup"

Of course that is said secondly because the French language must go first because they are the spoiled children of our society and nobody likes to be called a racist.

KnifeMissile · 10-22-2003, 10:48 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Ustwo
How Canada went from having the 3rd largest Navy in the world, and having VERY respectable ground forces, into the 98lbs weakling of today must be an interesting, if sad, story. Since schools in the US basicly ignore Canadan history, I don't know for sure, but I can make a good guess.

I don't think it's nearly as interesting a story as you hope. After World War II, we saw how much war sucked and went out of our way to not involve ourselves in one. If there are no wars, then there's no military.
I swear, sometimes the US goes to war just to test their new stuff out!

As a side note, I'm told that our military is rather top heavy. The idea is that if we really needed a military, we have officers who know how to run one so we can just build one up in short time. Also, we have very good nuclear technology but we have no nuclear weapons. Again, the idea is that we're a non-combatant country that could build nukes overnight, if we wanted.
Rather optimistic, I guess, but our national defense is not pissing anyone off enough to warrant them attacking us.

Also, while our tax money is poorly spent, that's the fault of the government and not the direction of expenditure. A billion dollars could easily have been spent on useless military equipment. Look at the Sea King. Look at our crappy "new" submarines...

prosequence · 10-22-2003, 11:58 AM

Who here would register the knives they have in the house?
Be willing to apply to be able to buy one?

Phaenx · 10-22-2003, 07:56 PM

Heh, the people who bother going through the process of legally owning a gun are not the people you have to worry about murdering you. These laws are a waste of time, always are.

Food Eater Lad · 10-22-2003, 08:12 PM

And murders rose after the gun control went into effect also. See the links in the England gun control thread.

filtherton · 10-22-2003, 08:30 PM

We should register knives as soon as they make a knife that allows me to walk into a crowded lunchroom at any random high school and kill or wound several of my classmates and/or members of the faculty.

Ustwo · 10-22-2003, 08:55 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by KnifeMissle
After World War II, we saw how much war sucked and went out of our way to not involve ourselves in one. If there are no wars, then there's no military.

Its a shame how a proud nation becomes a snail in its shell, hiding from the outside world and terrified of even having its own citizens armed.

seretogis · 10-22-2003, 09:35 PM

Oh man, does every thread have to turn into a flame-fest?

filtherton · 10-22-2003, 10:00 PM

Quote:

Its a shame how a proud nation becomes a snail in its shell, hiding from the outside world and terrified of even having its own citizens armed.

^^^ Are you serious? Its people saying things like this that make the world hate americans.

Ustwo · 10-22-2003, 10:08 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by filtherton
^^^ Are you serious? Its people saying things like this that make the world hate americans.

Really?

and how about this...

Quote:

I swear, sometimes the US goes to war just to test their new stuff out!

Perhaps thats ^^^ why Americans like me don't worry about being hated by other people.

America is hated much like the NY Yankees are hated. We are strong, rich, and win a lot. I don't lose any sleep over it. Luckly we are a forgiving people, so when the next major war happens, we will do our best to pull our 'friend's' asses out of the fire yet again.

KnifeMissile · 10-23-2003, 12:42 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by seretogis
Oh man, does every thread have to turn into a flame-fest?

Sadly, as long as people have an opinion without content, the answer is yes...

james t kirk · 10-23-2003, 04:48 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Ustwo
How Canada went from having the 3rd largest Navy in the world, and having VERY respectable ground forces, into the 98lbs weakling of today must be an interesting, if sad, story. Since schools in the US basicly ignore Canadan history, I don't know for sure, but I can make a good guess.

Actually, i blame alot of it on the the Diefenbaker conservatives.

They were the FOOLS who cancelled the ARROW. That one move set the tone of the Canadian military for the future. From that day onwards, Canada ceased to be a serious military player. We went from being on the cutting edge to the trailing edge. Forever looking to buy instead of build.

Long live RL-206

Charlatan · 10-24-2003, 06:41 AM

The theory around that decision by the Diefenbaker government goes that the US admin put pressure on Dief and Co. to stand down. They didn't want a large standing army on their northern border...

"Don't worry about a thing. We'll take care of you when the time comes..." Diefenbaker was a spinless idiot.

Charlatan · 10-24-2003, 06:53 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Ustwo
Its a shame how a proud nation becomes a snail in its shell, hiding from the outside world and terrified of even having its own citizens armed.

It all depends on how you look at it... You see a snail in its shell...

Many Canadians see that we are just as proud as always and smart enough to see the pointlessness of arming for war. Wars we have no intention of starting or participating in...

As for arming the citizenry... You can arm yourself you just need to register for it... Why should I care? If I want to buy a gun I can. Bureaucratic nightmare aside (because it really is another issue) why should I care if there is a gun registry? Canada has no equivalence to the “right to bear arms”. We don’t have the same gun culture as the US. Yes criminals can get guns. Criminals can also steal cars. Should I use that as a reason to not get a license for my car?

If our citizenry feels safer because there is a gun registry then let’s have one. If it is just sticking our heads in the sand so what… The point is it makes people feel better about guns and that, to me is a good thing.

The fact is that gun crime is not as big of an issue here is it is south of the border.

Food Eater Lad · 10-24-2003, 09:07 AM

Canada doesnt need an Army for the same reason Japan and NATO nations doent need one. They are the US's buddies. Our guns are your deterent.

Charlatan · 10-24-2003, 09:53 AM

It isn't that Japan doesn't need an army it's because they are not allowed to have one. I believe the terms of their surrender dictate that they cannot have a standing army.

As for the rest of NATO... So the UK, Germany, France don't have significant armies... That's just not the case.

The fact is that no country matches the US on per capita Military spending. They are heads and shoulders above all nations.

Bobdoler · 10-24-2003, 10:19 AM

"Canada doesnt need an Army for the same reason Japan and NATO nations doent need one. They are the US's buddies. Our guns are your deterent."

No, we don't need huge armies because we do not go around invading countries every 5 years for next to no reason, hence, not many people are pissed off at us, and we dont really have to worry much about being attacked.

Ustwo · 10-24-2003, 10:48 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Bobdoler

No, we don't need huge armies because we do not go around invading countries every 5 years for next to no reason, hence, not many people are pissed off at us, and we dont really have to worry much about being attacked.

Isolationist politics are great for a while. The US has tried it a few times, but then oddly we had to fight these big wars we did our best to avoid.

You can keep your head in the sand for a while, but sooner or later someone comes along and kicks you in the ass while you are not looking.

Charlatan · 10-24-2003, 11:33 AM

Ummm... Canada is hardly what would be called isolationist. It is just that when Canada gets involved we tend to lead with diplomats rather than soldiers.

And when we lead with soldiers it is almost always in a peacekeeping role.

Wake up and smell the maple syrup...

Food Eater Lad · 10-24-2003, 11:47 AM

And your dipomats know that US Guns are behind them. Are you telling me that if Canada was attacked, the USA would not leap to your defence? Same with France, Germany, and the UK?

Charlatan · 10-24-2003, 12:12 PM

Yes, yes, yes... of course the US would back us if someone were so inclined to attack Canada. The likelihood of that occuring is practically inconceivable.

Of course, that is so besides the point.

Our diplomats do not make a habit of going around rattling sabres to get results (especially when the sabre being rattled belongs to someone else). Diplomacy is not about having to resort to violence or even threatening violence (implicit or explicit).

Result can be and are achieved (even by the US) without resorting to who has the bigger army.

France, Germany and the UK in no way need the US to back them up in thier own diplomacy.

Are you so sheltered in the bosom of America that you honestly believe that these nations go spoiling for fights hoping that their big brother "Uncle Sam" is going to back them...

Charlatan · 10-24-2003, 12:16 PM

The big difference, with regards to Canada, is that we have no colonial or post-colonial interests abroad. We haven't nor do we intend to invade any other nations.

The times we have been to war have been simply to liberate and leave.

This makes us different form the majority of western powers.

Ustwo · 10-24-2003, 12:17 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Charlatan
Ummm... Canada is hardly what would be called isolationist. It is just that when Canada gets involved we tend to lead with diplomats rather than soldiers.

Tell it to Neville Chamberlain.

Charlatan · 10-24-2003, 12:24 PM

Can you clarify this please? I know who he is but don't get the reference in this context.

Unless you are refering to Chamberlain being a diplomat... of course it doesn't always work. That is besides the point.

...not to mention that the UK (with not a little help from Canada and other allies) had to deal with that situation when diplomacy failed.

10-21-2003, 06:38 PM	#1 (permalink)
prosequence Psycho Location: YOUR MOM!!	Welcome to Canada, is that butterknife registered? For those not familiar with Canada's efforts to avoid dead people, several years ago, they introduced bill c-68, voila, the Gun Registration Act. Makes it a huge pain in the ass (an expensive pain) to get firearms and ammunition. It was projected to be a 2 mill project but by 2004 will have ballooned to 100 million. In 2002 there were 149 murders due to fire arms. There were 182 due to knives/stabbing. Can we expect a national registry for knives? Will we need a permit to buy cutlery? Maybe they should all have serial numbers and you must be 21 before you can buy one? Please share your thoughts. __________________ And now here I stand because of you, Mister Anderson, because of you I'm no longer an agent of the system, because of you I've changed...

10-21-2003, 08:45 PM	#12 (permalink)
KnifeMissile Location: Waterloo, Ontario	It's all about balance. On one hand, you have tools that serve a purpose and you want people to be able to use these tools. On the other hand, you have tools that can kill people and you don't want people killed. Our freedom to act is important but so is our freedom to live! How do we balance these things? We harshly legislate guns 'cause, let's face it, they're made to kill. Sure, you don't have to shoot people with it. Hell, you don't even have to kill with it. You can shoot clay discs just for fun! For this reason, we allow people to own firearms. But, at some fundamental level, it's a tool for killing. Murder is made so easy with these things and, so, we regulate their use so carefully. They are so deadly, you can even kill someone accidentally. When was the last time someone was accidentally killed with a knife? Speaking of knives, they are so useful that they are ubiquitous. You can't go anywhere without finding one and you can find several of them in every household! Sadly, you can use them to kill people and they don't do a bad job of it, too. However, you can kill with just about anything and you can't legislate it all? Serial killers can kill with a knife but how many mass murders were executed with one? The fact of the matter is that guns aren't terribly essential to everyday life and can too easily be used to kill a great number of people, while knives are all too useful and aren't nearly as good at killing. Thus, one is highly regulated and the other is not. Really, lets put things into perspective. Yes, there have been more knife killings than firearm killings (according to the original poster) but considering just how ubiquitous knives are it's amazing how rarely they are used to kill. Guns, by contrast, are quite rare (I haven't seen one in person since 1986, not counting the sidearm holstered by police officers) and, yet, have caused so many deaths? As an aside, exactly how many more gun deaths were there after bill c-68? The recent number has been so low that I can't imagine that it was all that much. Also, a causal relationship has not been established. All we have is a correlation which could simply be a coincidence. Maybe the population increased? Maybe crime went up those years? Was that caused by bill c-68? I think people jump to conclusions all too easily. An occupational hazard in my profession (a cookie to anyone who can guess what that is!)... Last edited by KnifeMissile; 10-21-2003 at 08:48 PM..

10-21-2003, 09:52 PM	#14 (permalink)
splck it's jam Location: Lowerainland BC	The cost is now estimated at 1 billion dollars not 100 million. Just another Liberal party waste of money IMO. __________________ nice line eh?

10-22-2003, 11:58 AM	#19 (permalink)
prosequence Psycho Location: YOUR MOM!!	Who here would register the knives they have in the house? Be willing to apply to be able to buy one? __________________ And now here I stand because of you, Mister Anderson, because of you I'm no longer an agent of the system, because of you I've changed...

10-22-2003, 07:56 PM	#20 (permalink)
Phaenx The Northern Ward Location: Columbus, Ohio	Heh, the people who bother going through the process of legally owning a gun are not the people you have to worry about murdering you. These laws are a waste of time, always are. __________________ "I went shopping last night at like 1am. The place was empty and this old woman just making polite conversation said to me, 'where is everyone??' I replied, 'In bed, same place you and I should be!' Took me ten minutes to figure out why she gave me a dirty look." --Some guy

10-21-2003, 06:40 PM	#2 (permalink)
Food Eater Lad Banned	And dont forget the number of gun deaths also went up since the anti gun bill. So HUGE costs, and more gun deaths. Lets hear it for gun control.

10-21-2003, 06:54 PM	#3 (permalink)
HarmlessRabbit Junkie Location: San Jose, CA	Without context it's hard to judge the program. Have violent crimes gone up or down since 2002? I would think, though, that enforcing that kind of program is really hard given the porous borders with the United States. What did the $100 million go for? In USA terms, that's a pretty small government program. By comparison, the department of health and human services spent 8 billion dollars on HIV/AIDS programs in 2000. So, I guess what I'm saying is that there really isn't enough information in your post to judge the program as good or bad. Personally, I think gun registration is a good thing, but I can understand how people distrustful of government would think that gun registration is the first step to stricter gun controls.

10-21-2003, 07:07 PM	#4 (permalink)
SLM3 Insane	It's really interesting, when you look at how costs rose exponentially for this legislation. Anti gun control advocates went out of their way to make sure costs would rise. Incomplete forms sent in as well as massive amounts of calls to the 1-800 number were all actions organized and carried out by these people. You're right to ask about the context because there's a lot more to this story than many want to admit. SLM3

10-21-2003, 07:19 PM	#5 (permalink)
popo Psycho	What's amazing is that people see no problem with 1) needing to pass a test and have a licence and have insurance in order to use a transportation vehicle or 2) getting searched at airports for no reason other than the fact that you are travelling, 3) getting randomly stopped to check for DUI, but when it comes to registering an item fabricated for the sole purpose of killing, their rights are being trampelled on. Unreal.

10-21-2003, 07:37 PM	#6 (permalink)
Food Eater Lad Banned	But gun deaths went up after the act, as it did in every place after gun controls were enacted.

10-21-2003, 07:42 PM	#8 (permalink)
Food Eater Lad Banned	So Canada, Australia, and England are gun obessed too? I mean they all had large increases in gun homicide after gun control was enacted too.

10-21-2003, 08:23 PM	#10 (permalink)
Tman144 Tilted	Did the % of gun murders go up, or just the number of them? If there were 100 murders, and 12 of them were gun related last year. And this year there were 20 out of 200 murders related to guns, then yes gun murders went up, but there overall impact went down. So does anyone have the percentage? I hope that all makes sense.

10-21-2003, 08:38 PM	#11 (permalink)
TrogDor Tilted	I agree that all countries need control (especially Canada, north of the country with the most gun deaths in the world) but the way they did this was all wrong. They screwed around, not enforcing this gun law strongly, and wasting ALOT of money ( I actually thought it was 1 Billion dollars, rather than 100 million) for something that was supposed to cost two. Way to go liberals!

10-22-2003, 04:45 AM	#15 (permalink)
james t kirk Junkie Location: Toronto	I guess i really don't have a problem with people registering their guns. But I DO HATE the fact that it cost billions of dollars. That money could have been far more wisely spent than on an idiotic program that i don't see making our society any better. I think the military could have used a billion dollars to buy some proper amoured personnel carriers, especially in light of what just happened to those poor bastards in Afghanistan. Watching Chretien up their on the podium reading his speech written by someone else made me want to puke from the shear hypocrisy of it all.

10-22-2003, 08:12 PM	#21 (permalink)
Food Eater Lad Banned	And murders rose after the gun control went into effect also. See the links in the England gun control thread.

10-22-2003, 08:30 PM	#22 (permalink)
filtherton Junkie Location: In the land of ice and snow.	We should register knives as soon as they make a knife that allows me to walk into a crowded lunchroom at any random high school and kill or wound several of my classmates and/or members of the faculty.

10-22-2003, 09:35 PM	#24 (permalink)
seretogis Huggles, sir? Location: Seattle	Oh man, does every thread have to turn into a flame-fest? __________________ seretogis - sieg heil perfect little dream the kind that hurts the most, forgot how it feels well almost no one to blame always the same, open my eyes wake up in flames

10-24-2003, 06:41 AM	#29 (permalink)
Charlatan Getting it. Super Moderator Location: Lion City	The theory around that decision by the Diefenbaker government goes that the US admin put pressure on Dief and Co. to stand down. They didn't want a large standing army on their northern border... "Don't worry about a thing. We'll take care of you when the time comes..." Diefenbaker was a spinless idiot. __________________ "My hands are on fire. Hands are on fire. Ain't got no more time for all you charlatans and liars." - Old Man Luedecke

10-24-2003, 09:07 AM	#31 (permalink)
Food Eater Lad Banned	Canada doesnt need an Army for the same reason Japan and NATO nations doent need one. They are the US's buddies. Our guns are your deterent.

10-24-2003, 09:53 AM	#32 (permalink)
Charlatan Getting it. Super Moderator Location: Lion City	It isn't that Japan doesn't need an army it's because they are not allowed to have one. I believe the terms of their surrender dictate that they cannot have a standing army. As for the rest of NATO... So the UK, Germany, France don't have significant armies... That's just not the case. The fact is that no country matches the US on per capita Military spending. They are heads and shoulders above all nations. __________________ "My hands are on fire. Hands are on fire. Ain't got no more time for all you charlatans and liars." - Old Man Luedecke Last edited by Charlatan; 10-24-2003 at 09:55 AM..

10-24-2003, 10:19 AM	#33 (permalink)
Bobdoler Crazy	"Canada doesnt need an Army for the same reason Japan and NATO nations doent need one. They are the US's buddies. Our guns are your deterent." No, we don't need huge armies because we do not go around invading countries every 5 years for next to no reason, hence, not many people are pissed off at us, and we dont really have to worry much about being attacked. __________________ woot

10-24-2003, 11:33 AM	#35 (permalink)
Charlatan Getting it. Super Moderator Location: Lion City	Ummm... Canada is hardly what would be called isolationist. It is just that when Canada gets involved we tend to lead with diplomats rather than soldiers. And when we lead with soldiers it is almost always in a peacekeeping role. Wake up and smell the maple syrup... __________________ "My hands are on fire. Hands are on fire. Ain't got no more time for all you charlatans and liars." - Old Man Luedecke

10-24-2003, 11:47 AM	#36 (permalink)
Food Eater Lad Banned	And your dipomats know that US Guns are behind them. Are you telling me that if Canada was attacked, the USA would not leap to your defence? Same with France, Germany, and the UK?

10-24-2003, 12:12 PM	#37 (permalink)
Charlatan Getting it. Super Moderator Location: Lion City	Yes, yes, yes... of course the US would back us if someone were so inclined to attack Canada. The likelihood of that occuring is practically inconceivable. Of course, that is so besides the point. Our diplomats do not make a habit of going around rattling sabres to get results (especially when the sabre being rattled belongs to someone else). Diplomacy is not about having to resort to violence or even threatening violence (implicit or explicit). Result can be and are achieved (even by the US) without resorting to who has the bigger army. France, Germany and the UK in no way need the US to back them up in thier own diplomacy. Are you so sheltered in the bosom of America that you honestly believe that these nations go spoiling for fights hoping that their big brother "Uncle Sam" is going to back them... __________________ "My hands are on fire. Hands are on fire. Ain't got no more time for all you charlatans and liars." - Old Man Luedecke

10-24-2003, 12:16 PM	#38 (permalink)
Charlatan Getting it. Super Moderator Location: Lion City	The big difference, with regards to Canada, is that we have no colonial or post-colonial interests abroad. We haven't nor do we intend to invade any other nations. The times we have been to war have been simply to liberate and leave. This makes us different form the majority of western powers. __________________ "My hands are on fire. Hands are on fire. Ain't got no more time for all you charlatans and liars." - Old Man Luedecke

10-24-2003, 12:24 PM	#40 (permalink)
Charlatan Getting it. Super Moderator Location: Lion City	Can you clarify this please? I know who he is but don't get the reference in this context. Unless you are refering to Chamberlain being a diplomat... of course it doesn't always work. That is besides the point. ...not to mention that the UK (with not a little help from Canada and other allies) had to deal with that situation when diplomacy failed. __________________ "My hands are on fire. Hands are on fire. Ain't got no more time for all you charlatans and liars." - Old Man Luedecke Last edited by Charlatan; 10-24-2003 at 12:27 PM..