You clearly no nothing about him which is ok - if you read the adventures he put himself through when he was younger and older you would understand he was not just a narrator but someone who lived the field. If you are interested read one of the books on his life.
the reek of American exceptionalism. There is plenty of history out there you just have to realise america does not have much and there is allot outside of it.
Nuclear weaponry is offensive in nature, and Canada does not need them. The population broadly does not want them. Most people may acknowledge (after slight thought) that if we were to obtain/produce them, certainly other countries won't be happy and if we were to 'use' them, well I'm sure the fallout will end up on our own soil after it's swatted out of the sky. So, let's build AA defence/defense networks of our own, instead.
> there is no other way to resist US military power
I'm struggling with how to articulate the idea that seems to be in so many Canadian heads, regardless of their military experience.
Assume the worst case, that the US invades Canada and that no allies come to assist, for whatever reason.
The best the US can hope for is a pyrrhic victory: while it may well be true that the Canadian military and population cannot hope to resist the US military, anyone thinking there would be anything other than a pyrrhic victory does not understand how, uh, what words to choose, hmm, bloody mindedly petty and vindictive Canadians can be.
There is that old trope about mistaking "polite" for "nice". Canadians are mostly are the former, and are mostly the latter most of the time, and can even be the former while not at all being the latter. But remember too the trope as to why so many of the specific rules of the Geneva Convention, etm., exist.
Canadians don't pick fights, generally, but see fights to the end, always, and almost always no matter what. And it's not a red mist thing: That comes and clears. What is left is cold. Sober. Focused. Are you still here? Are you not retreating fast enough? Do I still have functional limbs/weapons/comms? Carrying on....
We don't stop until it is safe to stop, and by safe I mean we can stand down and not have to stand to again, or until there is no we left.
Now, more tropes:
Longest sniper kill: Canada has the top spot and at least two more of the top five. Those are all recent.
Only force to meet its D-Day objectives: Canada, with fighting as fierce on Juno as elsewhere.
Only western soldier to fire on a Soviet: A Canadian with the group sent to protect Denmark from Soviets who were rolling fast and hard over northern Germany. The RoE were sort of vague on that point, but they were explicit about not withdrawing, about not giving up an inch. Words didn't work, triggers were pulled, a standoff occurred until sufficient forces arrived to convince the Soviets to withdraw to their agreed lines.
Before becoming PM, Lester B. Pearson won the Noble Peace Prize for the idea of UN Peacekeepers, of putting Canadians in harm's way to separate combatants in hot zones. The idea was taken seriously because memories of Canadian performance in WWII and Korea were fresh in mind. "Oh, those guys? Yeah, OK, ceasefire and separation sounds good."
Again, I am not in anyway suggesting that the US would not win in an invasion of Canada, if Canada stood alone. What I am suggesting is that what would be left (of the US, let alone Canada) would make the victory hollow and bitter.
(You do know that the Canadian boycotts that are so impacting tourism and distillers, among others, are not economically motivated, right? So many US talking heads cite tit-for-tat tariff nonsense, and very few miss the point entirely: Canadians mostly didn't give a damn about tariffs, but when "51st state" was mooted, even if as a joke, Canadians stopped buying US stuff. The tariffs could disappear today and many would still push for closer ties with the EU, possibly even membership, for distancing Canada from the US even more, all because we are fiercely independent, and willing to sacrifice a great deal to retain that independence. Canadians are mostly quiet about it, but never mistake silence for acquiescence or consent.)
Am I crazy or is this just social/financial charity roulette for streamers. Also is there not inherently an issue building the foundations of a friendship on the predicate of one person being watched and the other having to watch and potentially pay the other? If one side doesn’t like or subscribe are they friends.
The idea that people turn to streaming to either support themselves or make friends and people feel the need to help them do so is everything right and wrong with society. It’s nice people are willing to support someone else and wrong that the most supported are often the worst and really we should just support people socially and financially outside of the streaming charity system we have created. I find it all a bit mind boggling.
Pure smear comment. Signal was and is the choice of personal messaging app for anyone I know who has ever worked in security or intelligence. That should say it all. Aside from apple, who did it because of them, it has set the gold standard for e2e chat. People moan about the phone number and “metadata” when in reality all this can be used for is to say yes x has a signal account and this is when they last used it. That’s it. It’s effectively useless to anyone. People moan about it leveraging the local social graph of the device it’s a necessary convenience for the adoption of any modern chat app. They go into great detail about how it is and isn’t used in a way that it cannot be used/viewed by others.
Frankly I’d bet half the people smearing it have X and Facebook apps installed on there phones and really aren’t serious people.
If I wanted to smear off topic I’d point out that telegram, along with the usual suspects, is a gold mine for intelligence gathering for what I’ve heard.
If someone say "please don't email me about this anymore" after writing a hit piece on someone and there company without giving them an opportunity to respond they are being provocative, goading and a troll.
Lori isn't writing a 'hit peice' she is writing a short post that is in effect a review of the service and the company and the founder.
If the founder wants to respond they can write a respectful blog post and put it on the fucking homepage. They don't have a right to harangue the author via email.
I mean, your email is kind of an open box that people can stuff letters into. If you don’t like the letters from someone you can rip them up unopened (send to trash).
reply