PM Justin Trudeau's Canada

[lenaitch]

What on Earth are you talking about?

Conscription wont be necessary til the war with China actually starts, first of all.

Second of all, there is no need to go mental on the spending ramp up.
A modest increase (oh, I don't know to 2% of GDP as it is supposed to be according to our NATO obligations) will suffice.

All that is required is regular and substantial military patrols in the area....and maybe debunking China's asinine claim to being a "near Arctic" nation. Maybe tell them what's what at the Arctic Council.

Anyway, the collapse of the Roman Empire was a lot more complex than the size of the thing.

Conscription would be pointless. Modern warfare wouldn't be like WWI or II where we took prairie farmboys and made sailors and pilots out of them in a few weeks and had small shipyards burp out corvettes in a month. Besides, what would they fly or sail? Modern war machines take years to design and build - an industrial base we no longer have.

Debunking China's 'near Arctic' claim needs to be an international effort of real arctic nations. One thing that would help is for the US to abandon its assertion that the NW Passage is international waters. It would aid our position - and theirs - and would not hurt their strategic interests. US flagged vessels, including warships, ply Canadian waters everyday.

We have a history of not defining our strategic interests, be they physical or economic security, in a comprehensive way. I have less concern about profits flowing offshore; we've done that for years all the way back to HBC. I am more concerned with actual offshore companies, particularly those that are not allies, from setting up shop. A wholly-owned Chinese mine in the arctic gives them licence to service it and haul the product back home, and we know that, under Chinese law, a company must do the bidding of the government. I don't want a Chinese-flagged 'supply ship' plying our waters.

 

[SunriseChampion]

Conscription would be pointless. Modern warfare wouldn't be like WWI or II where we took prairie farmboys and made sailors and pilots out of them in a few weeks and had small shipyards burp out corvettes in a month. Besides, what would they fly or sail? Modern war machines take years to design and build - an industrial base we no longer have.

For truth.

Debunking China's 'near Arctic' claim needs to be an international effort of real arctic nations. One thing that would help is for the US to abandon its assertion that the NW Passage is international waters. It would aid our position - and theirs - and would not hurt their strategic interests.

Not sure why the Yanks are so hard on the idea of it being international waters. Any insight?

I mean, there's the obvious: that they consider it strategically important for their own defence and see us as wholly incapable of defending it even on our own behalf.

We have a history of not defining our strategic interests, be they physical or economic security, in a comprehensive way. I have less concern about profits flowing offshore; we've done that for years all the way back to HBC. I am more concerned with actual offshore companies, particularly those that are not allies, from setting up shop. A wholly-owned Chinese mine in the arctic gives them licence to service it and haul the product back home, and we know that, under Chinese law, a company must do the bidding of the government. I don't want a Chinese-flagged 'supply ship' plying our waters.

That mine's sale was nixed by our government. Now if only they just as easily nixed Huawei........not sure what they're waiting for, but banning Huawei's involvement in our 5G networks is a forgone conclusion. There is no way our government would be so foolish as to abandon the Five Eyes.

But I'll settle for our government calling out China for their concentration camps in East Turkestan.

 

[afransen]

Having enough geopolitical heft to support our territorial integrity is one reason I am sympathetic to the thesis of 'maximum Canada' (the thought that we should be working toward a population of 100M over the coming century).

 

[lenaitch]

Not sure why the Yanks are so hard on the idea of it being international waters. Any insight?

I mean, there's the obvious: that they consider it strategically important for their own defence and see us as wholly incapable of defending it even on our own behalf.



That mine's sale was nixed by our government. Now if only they just as easily nixed Huawei........not sure what they're waiting for, but banning Huawei's involvement in our 5G networks is a forgone conclusion. There is no way our government would be so foolish as to abandon the Five Eyes.

But I'll settle for our government calling out China for their concentration camps in East Turkestan.

The only thing I can think of is their adherence to a general principle of 'freedom of seas' outside of widely accepted territorial limits. It's a bit of a hot button issue in the China Sea right now. They are correct that we can't defend it on our own.

 

[lenaitch]

For truth.


Not sure why the Yanks are so hard on the idea of it being international waters. Any insight?

I mean, there's the obvious: that they consider it strategically important for their own defence and see us as wholly incapable of defending it even on our own behalf.



That mine's sale was nixed by our government. Now if only they just as easily nixed Huawei........not sure what they're waiting for, but banning Huawei's involvement in our 5G networks is a forgone conclusion. There is no way our government would be so foolish as to abandon the Five Eyes.

But I'll settle for our government calling out China for their concentration camps in East Turkestan.

That purchase was nixed, but there is always 'the next one'; that's what I mean by a comprehensive policy rather than fighting every brush fire as an individual event.

I am convinced the government doesn't push harder on Huawei because they are afraid that one or both of the 'Michaels' will be accused of espionage or some thing similar, tried before lunch and either jailed for life or executed before dinner. China would be internationally condemned but they have demonstrated they care not a whit. We have virtually no leverage. I'm expected that JT is really, really hoping (secretly or otherwise) that the Biden administration drops the extradition request on what's her name. If nothing else, if the Michaels are released after what's her name is, it will show their arrest for what they really were but, again, China doesn't care.

 

[Videodrome]

https://twitter.com/x/status/1358814840521916418

This is terrible.

 

[afransen]

The hammering on the keyboard at the beginning definitely encapsulates the average age demographic of their voting base.

 

[Admiral Beez]

Jeez this took a turn toward stupid town.

 

[SunriseChampion]

That purchase was nixed, but there is always 'the next one'; that's what I mean by a comprehensive policy rather than fighting every brush fire as an individual event.

I am convinced the government doesn't push harder on Huawei because they are afraid that one or both of the 'Michaels' will be accused of espionage or some thing similar, tried before lunch and either jailed for life or executed before dinner. China would be internationally condemned but they have demonstrated they care not a whit. We have virtually no leverage. I'm expected that JT is really, really hoping (secretly or otherwise) that the Biden administration drops the extradition request on what's her name. If nothing else, if the Michaels are released after what's her name is, it will show their arrest for what they really were but, again, China doesn't care.

"What's her name" is colloquially known as "that mopey cow who moans about being on house arrest at multiple Vancouver locations whilst the two Canadians you mention are imprisoned and treated like dirt all while the Chinese government has the gall to complain about how she's mistreated".

Then again, "what's her name" is a lot more efficient.

Personally, and this is going to sound harsh, but y'all should be used to that from me after my death rants in the COVID thread, I think the Micheals may need to be sacrificed. I mean, it's pretty pathetic at this point that the lives of hundreds of thousands, nay, millions are less important than two people.

Our government needs to stand up to China not just for their flagrant abuses in the South China Sea and not just for the way they take hostages and not just for the disregard for the treaty they signed in regards to Hong Kong and their abuses there but most importantly for the concentration camps in East Turkestan.

There are those who still apologise for Hitler's appeasers but there's one big difference: Hitler didn't have concentration camps yet when the British and French were betraying their allies and licking his [can't say it, I'll probably get banned again].

On the other hand, I'm sort of heartened by how absolutely ridiculously stubborn our government is going to be in regards to two hostages overseas who were working in a hostile country.

I feel like I should travel more willy-nilly.....Trudeau's got my back. Or is that only if I get in trouble in countries where Liberal connections have business interests?

 

[SunriseChampion]

The hammering on the keyboard at the beginning definitely encapsulates the average age demographic of their voting base.

That wasn't hammering on the keyboard, but you'd be right about the age demographic: that, to me, sounded like a keyboard I might have had in the mid-90s.

 

[afransen]

Even very clicky mechanical keyboards need to be hammered on to make that sound. I used some of those ancient IBM mechanical keyboards (built like tanks and still ticking 20 years later) for many a late night coding session in my university computer lab. Also, no one under the age of ~45 types that slowly!

 

[SunriseChampion]

Also, no one under the age of ~45 types that slowly!

Ok.....this is just beyond reproach.

 

[lenaitch]

"What's her name" is colloquially known as "that mopey cow who moans about being on house arrest at multiple Vancouver locations whilst the two Canadians you mention are imprisoned and treated like dirt all while the Chinese government has the gall to complain about how she's mistreated".

Then again, "what's her name" is a lot more efficient.

Personally, and this is going to sound harsh, but y'all should be used to that from me after my death rants in the COVID thread, I think the Micheals may need to be sacrificed. I mean, it's pretty pathetic at this point that the lives of hundreds of thousands, nay, millions are less important than two people.

Our government needs to stand up to China not just for their flagrant abuses in the South China Sea and not just for the way they take hostages and not just for the disregard for the treaty they signed in regards to Hong Kong and their abuses there but most importantly for the concentration camps in East Turkestan.

There are those who still apologise for Hitler's appeasers but there's one big difference: Hitler didn't have concentration camps yet when the British and French were betraying their allies and licking his [can't say it, I'll probably get banned again].

On the other hand, I'm sort of heartened by how absolutely ridiculously stubborn our government is going to be in regards to two hostages overseas who were working in a hostile country.

I feel like I should travel more willy-nilly.....Trudeau's got my back. Or is that only if I get in trouble in countries where Liberal connections have business interests?

Ha. Honestly, when I was typing the post I quite frankly gapped on her name and was too lazy to open another tab and look it up; but I will accept your logic of efficiency!

Travellers have to remember that when they enter a foreign land they are subject to their laws and Canada has preciously little leverage, particularly with non-allied or non-friendly nations, to enforce diplomatic support let alone intervene.

I agree that we need to stand up to China, and I imagine there are a number of ways that can be done with what little weight we have. It will be interesting to see what the new US administration's approach will be. A more coherent, less mercurial foreign policy WRT to China would be a start.

 

[SunriseChampion]

I agree that we need to stand up to China, and I imagine there are a number of ways that can be done with what little weight we have. It will be interesting to see what the new US administration's approach will be. A more coherent, less mercurial foreign policy WRT to China would be a start.

I would start by banning all resource/food exports to China.

I'm not joking.

We see our government is very willing to amass massive amounts of debt to help the economy in times of crisis. Well, I'm sure buying out the contracts our exporters might have is possible as well.

Reorient our exports elsewhere.

Why anyone would want their blood money is beyond me anyway.

They just love to lord it over exporting countries like Canada and Australia by banning this and that shipment as they see fit in their little outbursts of indignation at some perceived slight or other. Well, let the dogs choke on their own medicine.

 

[Northern Light]

I would start by banning all resource/food exports to China.

I'm not joking.

We see our government is very willing to amass massive amounts of debt to help the economy in times of crisis. Well, I'm sure buying out the contracts our exporters might have is possible as well.

Reorient our exports elsewhere.

Why anyone would want their blood money is beyond me anyway.

They just love to lord it over exporting countries like Canada and Australia by banning this and that shipment as they see fit in their little outbursts of indignation at some perceived slight or other. Well, let the dogs choke on their own medicine.

We are, as a nation, the third largest (foreign) supplier of food to China, at roughly 5% of their supply.

The trade is worth a bit over 6B a year if memory serves.

So, aside from the fact we could and would ultimately sell the food to someone else; the one-time off-set cost of nixing those exports would be manageable.

That said, China would, of course, replace our food with someone else's albeit, probably at a modest premium the first year, due to a need to interrupt established supply chains on short notice.

The challenge, is, of course, the secondary and tertiary effects of such a move.

That's not an argument against it, per se.

But we do need to ask....

A) What is the real, lasting impact on China?

B) What's the impact on us?

That latter matter also involves the effect such a move would have on our other trading partners.

How would they feel knowing that if they rely on us for food or energy, we might cut them off over a dispute?

Would some of them seek to lessen their reliance on us as suppliers as a result?

How would that impact our costs?

****

That's not an argument for appeasing China; but for carefully considering the totality of the impact of one's actions; including whether it actually achieves a goal; and at what cost.

****

That said, Canadians do under estimate the levers open to us as a country, should we choose to use them, irrespective of any consequences.

We are among the largest net exporters of both food and energy in the world.

And several key metals, and timber as well.

But as the 2nd largest supplier of uranium amongst other key metals/minerals ...........