BF2S Forums Canadian!!

I believe it was an episode of the show "The Kids in the Hall" where a waiter in some exotic locale walks up to a table and asks the man seated there "Are you an American?", to which he replies, "No, I'm a Canadian. It's like an American but without the gun."

But seriously, I love Canada and would would probably move there tomorrow if it weren't so damn cold! Furthermore, I would welcome a Canadian force in BF2, but as an earlier poster mentioned, its really the British who are getting ripped off in  BF2.

The British have the only army (next to the US and Israel, of course) that actually sees a fair amount of action in the "real world". But instead of the British Army we get a fictional "Euro Force" composed of nations that are (for better or worse) allergic to armed conflict. What sense does that make?...

An Enlarged Liver wrote:

I heard they were going to be in the mix with: Battlefield - The Swiss Army.

It has pocket knifes that do like Everything!

"Watch out I have a *pling sound*.. Errrm .. Spoon .."

Curtor wrote:

(Correct me if I'm wrong, but..)
Canada has never had to use conscription because there was always enough volunteers.  For every war they have been in.

Billy Bishop?

Close.

In the Great War, despite large numbers of volunteers, the massive losses convinved Prime Minister Robert Borden to begin conscription in 1917. Something around 12 000 conscripts were sent, but largely, it occurred too late to have much effect. It was enacted as an emergency program with support amongst English-Canadians, but opposition in Quebec and British Columbia. Riots broke out in B.C. when men were forcibly conscripted.

Similarly, the Second World War saw conscription at the end, but was also unnecessary and ineffective. Just over 2 000 conscripts were actually used, and there was split support over the decision.

So, yes, you are right in saying that there have always been enough volunteers, as Canada has maintained, in ratio, one of the largest volunteer militaries during the World Wars. However, conscription was used twice, but not very historically relevant.

hahaha um the canadians would et thier asses handed to them on a silver platter.

althoght canadian; seriously no. because everyone else would want to have their countries' military in it.
EDIT: as a mod...YES !

Last edited by agent146 (2007-07-23 20:44:29)

sorry buddy, im canadian and i dont even agree... our army is shiat

trex1210 wrote:

Well I was watching some Videos on the CF and they look like they know what there doing. Im a proud Canadian and I would really like to see what the Canadian Forces could do against the USMC or MEC.

Not to much....

First wrote:

Do not make fun of that which you do not know. The Canadian Forces are strict and well disciplined and unless you ever join (like i have) you shouldn't make fun of men and women that lose there lifes so that you can sit on a forum and poke fun at the sacrifices made be the armed forces that protect your ass.

The soldiers are a okay, the brute force of your soldiers combining is a null attempt to agressively match the force of the MEC or the U.S. military might.

I'm not talking about the USMC because the only other country that is close to the U.S. military strength is China. That is soley because billions are spent on your military. The Canadian Forces is not what the U.S. army is in terms of their purpose so comparing them is impossible and should not be done. The C.F. main goal is to provide troops for U.N. missions while the reserve force is for home defence. This is not what the U.S. army is for they are there for your protection and your President's/ Governments orders.

First wrote:

I'm not talking about the USMC because the only other country that is close to the U.S. military strength is China. That is soley because billions are spent on your military. The Canadian Forces is not what the U.S. army is in terms of their purpose so comparing them is impossible and should not be done. The C.F. main goal is to provide troops for U.N. missions while the reserve force is for home defence. This is not what the U.S. army is for they are there for your protection and your President's/ Governments orders.

The Canadian army is designed to do EXACTLY what the U.S. and Chinese armies are for. Fight. Albeit, they are less effective in this then the U.S. or M.E.C due to the budget alloted. The U.S. allots troops to the U.N. (more so then ANY other nation), we also keep a healthy "reserve" at home.

First wrote:

nlsme wrote:

First wrote:

I'm not talking about the USMC because the only other country that is close to the U.S. military strength is China. That is soley because billions are spent on your military. The Canadian Forces is not what the U.S. army is in terms of their purpose so comparing them is impossible and should not be done. The C.F. main goal is to provide troops for U.N. missions while the reserve force is for home defence. This is not what the U.S. army is for they are there for your protection and your President's/ Governments orders.

The Canadian army is designed to do EXACTLY what the U.S. and Chinese armies are for. Fight. Albeit, they are less effective in this then the U.S. or M.E.C due to the budget alloted. The U.S. allots troops to the U.N. (more so then ANY other nation), we also keep a healthy "reserve" at home.

I didnt want to bring that up but yes you do spend more money on your armed forces, and yes the U.S supplies the U.N with more troops but those are the same point. The U.S. has more troops because they spend more money on there forces. The Canadian army is obviously trained to fight but it is of a differnet purpose then the U.S. when was the last time Canada invaded another country( in the battle of 1812) Canadian soldiers are deployed as part of U.N, or N.A.TO reasons. In that way we do not need to keep a large standing army because we never enter a battle with out our allies beside us. So that the money can be spent on other things like free health care and emmisions control. So how can you compare the two Forces when they are of different standards, if you were to compare them soldier to soldier there would be little difference.

I admit there is little differance soldier to soldier. But the are intended for the EXACT same thing. And the last time Canada "invaded" another country happens to be the exact same time the U.S. did. Don't say that Canada chooses to spend their millitary money on healthcare, your excess taxes do that. As far as emmision control, America has spent money there too. I'm not on pissing about he U.S.>Canada in any way, just stating our armies are there for the exact same reason, and can be compared.

Reciprocity wrote:

Canadians.  hmm. that's a good Idea.  they could bring our Marines fresh water bottles.

LOL




No....