Canadian warship thwarts pirates again

Yes, but what have we done for them lately?

Canada and the USA will always be watching each other’s backs.

CORRECTION: I hope Obama watches Canada and the USA’s backs.

AND AGAIN!!! 3 TIMES IN A WEEK!

But your right. It’s not constructive to compare...

Canadian warship wards off attempted pirate attack off Horn of Africa
15:13 on April 11, 2009, EDT.
By THE CANADIAN PRESS

TORONTO - For the third time in a week the crew of the Canadian Navy’s HMCS Winnipeg has helped ward off a suspected pirate attack off the Gulf of Aden.

Commander Craig Baines tells CTV NewsNet that the Winnipeg dispatched its Sea King helicopter Friday night after a civilian vessel reported four people in a skiff were firing weapons at it.

Once the suspected pirate vessel was located, Baines says a boarding team was sent over. However, as they approached the skiff in the dark the crew saw a number of items being thrown overboard, possibly weapons.

On Wednesday, the Canadian warship was involved in a similar incident involving a skiff with four men firing at a civilian vessel, and last Saturday, its Sea King crew warded off another potential attack.

The Winnipeg is currently participating in a NATO led counter-piracy mission known as Operation Allied Protector.

Piracy along the anarchic and impoverished Somali coast, the longest in Africa, has risen in recent years. Somali pirates have been seizing ships with many hostages and anchoring it near shore, where they have quickly escaped to land and begun negotiations for multimillion-dollar ransoms.

Video about this from CNN
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Gqvd4StTRkk&eurl=http://www.facebook.com/group.php%3Fsid%3Df21b65c4afc6b7e5abb68150771b3848%26gid%3D47548751530%26ref%3Dsearch&feature=player_embedded

Well, I'm not sure we disagree all that much, except that I am grateful for Canada's support, and you seem not to be.

"The US spends more on defense than the rest of NATO combined. The US forces are so far advanced from the rest that there are real questions of interoperability among members. And the US provides most of the logistics in Afghanistan. Canada's contributions are welcome but small."

Agreed. I have long thought NATO useless and its expansion flatly dangerous...though I think Canada's contributions are disporportionalty large in comparison to many of the other members.

"In Europe, conservative is a relative term. The people of the UK didn't support their presence in Iraq, but Blair had the courage to do it anyway."

Chretein however did not, so you're really only proving my point. Bad leadership makes for bad policy, and when you have conservative leaders in power, you get better military policy.

"The point is that Canada has not been as loyal an allie as you make them out to be. After the Korean War, they have done very little with us militarily when it comes to real combat. The Australians have been far better in that regard."

I just don't think there is any rational basis for this assertion. I don't think there are two free and fully independent countries on the face of the earth that have as extensive and cooperatives ties as do the U.S. and Canada, and that includes defense. I respect what Australia has done, but if they had had Rudd instead of Howard, Australia wouldn't have gone with us either...and you'd be saying the same thing about them. You "separate the individual sacrifice from national policy," but you seem unable to seperate individual leadership or parties from national policy. Strange.

"I suggest you read the history of the Falklands war and see what assistance the US provided. And don't get me started about what the US did for Europe during and after WWII. We have provided the security umbrella for Europe for almost 65 years and the Marshall Plan was essential to their recovery and economic resurgence."

I don't seem to recall there being any U.S. combat troops in the Falklands, but if you're going to start counting strategic intelligence and other military assistance as evidence of a strong alliance, then your criticism of Canada is even more unfounded.

"First, let's talk about Canada and not be diverted by the UK, which I will address later. The Canadian forces are today funded by approximately $19 billion annually, and are presently ranked 46th in size compared to the world's other armed forces, and 55th in terms of active personnel, standing at a population of roughly 65,000, not including the 26,000 reservists. Its 1.1% of GDP spent on defense ranks 132nd in the world.First, let's talk about Canada and not be diverted by the UK, which I will address later. The Canadian forces are today funded by approximately $19 billion annually, and are presently ranked 46th in size compared to the world's other armed forces, and 55th in terms of active personnel, standing at a population of roughly 65,000, not including the 26,000 reservists. Its 1.1% of GDP spent on defense ranks 132nd in the world. The UK has been in decline militarily and will continue to do so as it can no longer afford guns and butter. The British Empire has slowly receded as the UK made some hard choices, e.g., no forces East of Suez. The welfare state consumes more and more resources. As long as the US picks up most of the tab, the Europeans can luxuriate in their lifestyle and be critical of the US. Now that Obama is in charge, they can have the best of both worlds. They can control and direct what the US does, while we continue to pay the costs. "do you blame them for finding other spending priorities?" LOL. Of course I do. Why should the US taxpayer pay disproportionately for Canada's defense. Not to worry, the US is going to have to spend less on defense because we can't afford to be the world's lone superpower any longer. The huge, crushing national debt and rising entitlement costs will force us to choose butter over guns, just as it did in Europe and Canada. "

I really don't disagree with any of this...I just find it puzzling that we agree to pick up the tab for everyone's military and then complain about it when they don't invest in large militaries. Canada is probably the safest country in the world outside of the U.S., it has no historic enemies and sits on top of the world's only superpower, it's closest ally. By analogy, if I lived next door to the police station, I guess I wouldn't spend huge amounts of my paycheck on expensive alarms and high fences. The Europeans do the same damn thing. We may not like it, but we created the dependency. I'm more than happy to end it, but were getting ready to expand NATO for some inexplicable reason."

"Canada is doing its duty in Afghanistan. You can use all of the data you want, but it is the US who is bearing the overwhelming burden in terms of costs and lives. How many Canadians credit the US for defending them since WWII? Certainly not those who boo our national anthem at the Special Olympics or at hockey games."

Well, I would expect the U.S. to bear the burden in just about any conflict because of our hugely disproportionate power to any other military. I am sure we all know the score on defense since WWII, in which Canada I might add, acted admirably. It seems some Canadians have angered you, and there are plenty of snarky ones, particularly in Quebec, but you should seperate a long history of cooperation, friendship and mutual defense from rude fans at a hockey match.

"There you go again, changing the subject and attacking the UK and France. The US cannot afford to take a break and it seems ludicrous to me that the head of Canada's army suggests that they need a year off from operational duties. When has the UK or France made such a ridiculous statement?"

Well, I've never attacked the UK at all, whose assistance remains indispensible. Enough cannot be said about British sacrifices over the years. I've merely used them as a basis for comparison with Canada since they are all, NATO members, and the numbers compare well. I don't think either the UK or France have made such a statement, though I could be wrong, but operationally, no military can continue to go on indefinitely...everyone needs a break. Even the U.S., and we've had plenty of discussions about needing a break in past few years, especially with regard to the burdens placed on our national guardsmen and women. As for France taking a break, well, they haven't been active members of the NATO military command since 1966, so I would say they took one hell of a break, and when it counted most for defeating the Soviets.

"I can separate the individual sacrifice from national policy. Canda's rank as 132nd in the world in its expenditures on national defense as a percentage of GDP speaks for itself. It is a joke, but it is on the US taxpayer. I guess we indirectly subsidize the Canadian health system, i.s., less money on defense means more money for the social welfare system."

Again, I think you're being very unfair given Canada's population and the GDP numbers are very misleading because of the size of the economies we're talking about. Yes, I would like to see Canada have a more robust military, but I would also like to see Germany and France and Japan and Australia and Italy and many others have stronger ones too. I guess I just save my criticism for those whose defense we provide and lifestyles we subsidize while they sit on their hands, as oppossed to those, like Canada, whose soldiers are more often than not with us, and are currently dyeing in Afghanistan right alongside us.

Well, I'm not sure we disagree all that much, except that I am grateful for Canada's support, and you seem not to be.

I see no reason to be "grateful." Is Canada grateful for our support of Canada's security? Some Canadians have no problem booing our national anthem at the Special Olympics and at hockey games. It is Canada's duty as a member of NATO to be supportive.

Agreed. I have long thought NATO useless and its expansion flatly dangerous...though I think Canada's contributions are disporportionalty large in comparison to many of the other members.

I gasther you are referring to Afghanistan. I disagree that NATO's expansion is dangerous. The former countries of the Warsaw Pact want the protection NATO offers. As someone who lived in Poland for two years during the days of martial law and communism, I fully understand why the Poles, Czechs, et. al. want the protection NATO offers from Russia. And they want the US to be the guarantor of their new found freedom.

Chretein however did not, so you're really only proving my point. Bad leadership makes for bad policy, and when you have conservative leaders in power, you get better military policy.

I wonder how much Canadians really support a strong defense policy and an increase in defense spending. The Defense Force is declining regardless of who is in power.

I just don't think there is any rational basis for this assertion. I don't think there are two free and fully independent countries on the face of the earth that have as extensive and cooperatives ties as do the U.S. and Canada, and that includes defense. I respect what Australia has done, but if they had had Rudd instead of Howard, Australia wouldn't have gone with us either...and you'd be saying the same thing about them.

Canada is our biggest trading partner. 85% of Canada's exports go to the US and 59% of its imports come from the US. That said, you can't divorce the political leadership of the country from the people or the defense policies. Canada only spends 1.1% of its GDP on defense, which is 132nd in the world. Somebody is electing these policymakers into office. Canada is still a democracy.

I don't seem to recall there being any U.S. combat troops in the Falklands, but if you're going to start counting strategic intelligence and other military assistance as evidence of a strong alliance, then your criticism of Canada is even more unfounded.

Why would we send combat troops to the Falklands? Did Canada send combat troops to the Falklands? Your ties to the UK are far stronger than ours. Did NATO send combat troops to the Falkland?

Some believe that the UK could not have been victorious without our assistance, which consisted of intelligence and military weaponry. [to be continued]

I don't seem to recall there being any U.S. combat troops in the Falklands,

Here is one view of the US contributions. Exaggerated perhaps, substantial yes.The Argentine military establishment had no trouble last week explaining why Britain was able to recapture the Falklands: massive U.S. military assistance

The Europeans do the same damn thing. We may not like it, but we created the dependency. I'm more than happy to end it, but were getting ready to expand NATO for some inexplicable reason."

Yeah right. Blame the victim. How do we end it? Don't these nations have the same responsibility as we have to support peace and freedom around the globe? And NATO expansion has nothing to do with nations sharing the burden. In fact, the new nations in NATO are doing more than Old Europe with the exception of the UK. I guess we can use withdrawal as a way to end this dependency. Let the Euros and Canada fend for themselves. We can't afford to be the global policeman any more.

Even the U.S., and we've had plenty of discussions about needing a break in past few years, especially with regard to the burdens placed on our national guardsmen and women

What the hell are you talking about? The US has never talked about suspending all operational duties of our military. What kind of "break" are you referring to? We want to expand our military after the cutbacks during the peace dividend years of Clinton. The problem is that we can no longer afford both guns and butter. We are stretched too thin.

It seems some Canadians have angered you, and there are plenty of snarky ones, particularly in Quebec, but you should seperate a long history of cooperation, friendship and mutual defense from rude fans at a hockey match.

It goes much deeper than that. Canada is unwilling to contribute its fair share of the defense burden. Anti-Americanism is rising. Our northern border is becoming more of a security threat due to Canada's lax policies on who they let into Canada. Immigration Policy and the Terrorist Threat in Canada and the United States

Again, I think you're being very unfair given Canada's population and the GDP numbers are very misleading because of the size of the economies we're talking about. Yes, I would like to see Canada have a more robust military, but I would also like to see Germany and France and Japan and Australia and Italy and many others have stronger ones too. I guess I just save my criticism for those whose defense we provide and lifestyles we subsidize while they sit on their hands, as oppossed to those, like Canada, whose soldiers are more often than not with us, and are currently dyeing in Afghanistan right alongside us.

We are talking about Canada. You can try to change the subject and divert attention elsewhere. Canada has done very little during the past 50 years in helping the US in a combat role. Yes, the 2,500 troops in Afghanistan are welcome and the deaths of 116 Canadians in combat are lamentable, but let's be real. Canada is not pulling its weight and the defense forces are in a dismal state. And for some reason, many Canadians are now whinning that they are making disproportionate sacrifices. And Americans must show how grateful they are. Give me a break. We have lost about 5,000 Americans in Iraq/Afghanistan with more than 30,000 wounded. Close to 200,000 troops have been committed. Try that in your numbers comparisons. I guess if Luxemburg sent some troops and lost 5 people, we can call their losses more per capita than the US or Canada.

Germany and France and Australia and Italy spend a greater percentage of their GDP on defense than Canada. Japan is about the same.

"Here is one view of the US contributions. Exaggerated perhaps, substantial yes.The Argentine military establishment had no trouble last week explaining why Britain was able to recapture the Falklands: massive U.S. military assistance."

Well, if this kind of logistical support amounts to substantial assistance from an ally, then Canada's actually having around 150 soldiers serving with U.S. and British forces, and under their command, during Iraqi Freedom counts too. Yes, the Canadians had soldiers there: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iPVOhva_cwI

"Yeah right. Blame the victim. How do we end it? Don't these nations have the same responsibility as we have to support peace and freedom around the globe? And NATO expansion has nothing to do with nations sharing the burden. In fact, the new nations in NATO are doing more than Old Europe with the exception of the UK. I guess we can use withdrawal as a way to end this dependency. Let the Euros and Canada fend for themselves. We can't afford to be the global policeman any more."

I'm not assigning blame, nor do I consider us a victim. It is simply a fact that these nations spend less on their militaries because they don't have to. We protect them. We end it, the dependency that is, by pulling out of NATO and letting the Europeans garrison their own continent. We will always have a mutual security arrangement with Canada as it would be folly not to, and likely with nations such as Britain who continue to have congruent interests and the fortitude to do something about it.

"What the hell are you talking about? The US has never talked about suspending all operational duties of our military. What kind of "break" are you referring to? We want to expand our military after the cutbacks during the peace dividend years of Clinton. The problem is that we can no longer afford both guns and butter. We are stretched too thin."

Well, that's it precisely, our military is overburdened, and when that occurs it tells you that you need a few things: more personnel, equipment, and funding, and a little downtime. No, of course we would never claim a need to end all operational duties, but there has been ample discussion of our inability to continue fighting foreign wars at the current level. Just recently: "Strained by repeated war tours, persistent terrorist threats and instability around the globe, there is a significant risk the U.S. military may not be able to respond quickly and fully to new crises, a classified Pentagon assessment has concluded."(http://www.newsmax.com/newsfront/DoD_military_not_ready/2009/02/20/183712.html>

"It goes much deeper than that. Canada is unwilling to contribute its fair share of the defense burden. Anti-Americanism is rising. Our northern border is becoming more of a security threat due to Canada's lax policies on who they let into Canada. Immigration Policy and the Terrorist Threat in Canada and the United States"

Anti-Americanism has been the cause celeb in the last few years because the Left always hates America, and when led by a pro-American president, it becomes all-consuming for them. But there will always be America-haters. As for a lax immigration policy, I would think we would be the last people to complain about that...you could get Hannibal and his war elephants over the southern U.S. border without anyone noticing.

"We are talking about Canada. You can try to change the subject and divert attention elsewhere."

I have to say, I have never met anyone so resistant to comparison or analogy...I'm not trying to change the subject, I'm trying to put Canada's actions in context. Strange.

"Canada has done very little during the past 50 years in helping the US in a combat role."

It is odd to me, again by way of comparison, that you cite U.S. non-combat assistance to Britain in the Falklands War as a textbook example of faithful allied assistance, but lambaste Canada for limited combat roles despite our inseparable joint defense of N. America via NORAD, etc. Very much a double standard.

"Yes, the 2,500 troops in Afghanistan are welcome and the deaths of 116 Canadians in combat are lamentable, but let's be real. Canada is not pulling its weight and the defense forces are in a dismal state. And for some reason, many Canadians are now whinning that they are making disproportionate sacrifices. And Americans must show how grateful they are. Give me a break."

Frankly, I haven't heard too much from the Canadians in terms of demanding our gratitude. In fact, the demands for gratitude usually come from Americans reminding others about WWII, etc. I find it distasteful when anyone does it. In any event, I guess I have a different concept of 'allies' than you, since I think that two free and allied countries with similar interests could have come to different conclusions about the wisdom of war with Iraq without it being the end of the alliance. Just as we did not jump headlong into the Suez Crisis when Britain and France sought our assistance, Canada and other nations will not always follow us into the breach when we decide to take action. It doesn't mean were not allies...it means we have different interests at the time.

"We have lost about 5,000 Americans in Iraq/Afghanistan with more than 30,000 wounded. Close to 200,000 troops have been committed. Try that in your numbers comparisons. I guess if Luxemburg sent some troops and lost 5 people, we can call their losses more per capita than the US or Canada."

Well, at least now your getting the concept. I can't believe you would be of the opinion that Canada with less than 1/10 our population and 1/13 our GDP would, or possibly could, bare the same level of military burden. Could Canada do more? Sure, but so could every other allied nation in the world. Since WWII, the US has disproportionally shouldered the burden of the defense of the free world - mostly because no one else could, and we feared that no one else would.

Well, if this kind of logistical support amounts to substantial assistance from an ally, then Canada's actually having around 150 soldiers serving with U.S. and British forces, and under their command, during Iraqi Freedom counts too. Yes, the Canadians had soldiers there:

I watched the video. This was before we invaded Iraq. This does not mean that there were 150 Canadians in Iraq, but rather in the REGION. Big difference. They were problably part of Joint Command Hdqtrs and stationed in Kuwait and Bahrain. How many casualties did Canada suffer in Iraq? Answer: None.

I'm not assigning blame, nor do I consider us a victim. It is simply a fact that these nations spend less on their militaries because they don't have to. We protect them. We end it, the dependency that is, by pulling out of NATO and letting the Europeans garrison their own continent. We will always have a mutual security arrangement with Canada as it would be folly not to, and likely with nations such as Britain who continue to have congruent interests and the fortitude to do something about it.

If we pull out of NATO, it will cease to exist. I am not for abolishing NATO, but rather getting the members, including Canada, to start paying their fair share.

Well, that's it precisely, our military is overburdened, and when that occurs it tells you that you need a few things: more personnel, equipment, and funding, and a little downtime. No, of course we would never claim a need to end all operational duties, but there has been ample discussion of our inability to continue fighting foreign wars at the current level. Just recently: "Strained by repeated war tours, persistent terrorist threats and instability around the globe, there is a significant risk the U.S. military may not be able to respond quickly and fully to new crises, a classified Pentagon assessment has concluded."

Duh. As I have mentioned, the US is going to find it increasingly more difficult to fund and staff DOD. The costs of servicing our debt is now over $400 billion a year, the third largest expense in the federal budget, behind the costs of the entitlement programs and DOD. Obama is doubling the national debt in five years, which will raise the annual costs of servicing the debt to over $800 billion. Obama proposes cutting DOD by 10%. We can't afford more for defense unless we start cutting elsewhere. Guns versus butter. The Europeans faced the same issue, and chose butter, i.e., to fund their generous social welfare system..

In addition to an aging population, the US through its pro-population growth policies is importing 1.2 million legal immigrants a year, most of them poor and uneducated. Today, one in three immigrants uses a major social welfare program. We are importing poverty. And we will add another 135 million people in the next 40 years [the equivalent of the combined populations of Canada and Mexico or France and Germany], three-quarters due to immigration. As a result, there is going to be more demand for scarce dollars. The US is currently the world's largest debtor nation.

Anti-Americanism has been the cause celeb in the last few years because the Left always hates America, and when led by a pro-American president, it becomes all-consuming for them. But there will always be America-haters. As for a lax immigration policy, I would think we would be the last people to complain about that...you could get Hannibal and his war elephants over the southern U.S. border without anyone noticing.

Read the report. There you go changing the subject and diverting attention away from Canada. I am well aware of the poor security on the southern border, but we also have growing problems on the northern border diverting resources from the southern border.

Now that we have a Leftist President, will be loved more or less in Canada? Just as is the case in Europe, what Canadians may consider to be a Conservative is really a moderate Leftist. I don't think Harper will be pushing to get rid of socialized medicine in Canada.

It is odd to me, again by way of comparison, that you cite U.S. non-combat assistance to Britain in the Falklands War as a textbook example of faithful allied assistance, but lambaste Canada for limited combat roles despite our inseparable joint defense of N. America via NORAD, etc. Very much a double standard.

Textbook example? Your words, not mine. The US had a difficult problem because both the UK and Argentina are allies. What did Canada do for the Queen in the Falklands? .

Frankly, I haven't heard too much from the Canadians in terms of demanding our gratitude. In fact, the demands for gratitude usually come from Americans reminding others about WWII, etc. I find it distasteful when anyone does it.

I wish we would do more of it when it comes to reminding some of our ungrateful allies of what we did for them. Colin Powell mentioned one time that we never had designs on territory, just a small piece of land to bury our dead. When you have countries like France that don't allow you to fly over their territory to attack Libya, it is irksome. People have short memories, especially Europeans and Canadians.

Just as we did not jump headlong into the Suez Crisis when Britain and France sought our assistance, Canada and other nations will not always follow us into the breach when we decide to take action. It doesn't mean were not allies...it means we have different interests at the time.

Why would we jump to the assistance of the UK and France on Suez? I suggest you read your history. As far as allies are concerned, if you are part of an organization like NATO, you are expected to pull your weight. Countries like France and Canada have not. Shouldn't Canada spend more on defense than 1.1% of its GDP? $19 billion a year and a 65,000 man defense force just isn't adequate. Shouldn't Canada take a more active role in concert with the US in global defense matters?

Well, at least now your getting the concept. I can't believe you would be of the opinion that Canada with less than 1/10 our population and 1/13 our GDP would, or possibly could, bare the same level of military burden. Could Canada do more? Sure, but so could every other allied nation in the world. Since WWII, the US has disproportionally shouldered the burden of the defense of the free world - mostly because no one else could, and we feared that no one else would.

I would be happen if they would do 1/10 or 1/13 of what we do. Run the numbers. We have 1.5 million active duty personnel under arms, Canada has 65,000. We spend more than $700 billion on defense and Canada spends $19 billion.

Canada could and should do more. Why isn't it?

I’m glad the attack was thwarted, but with the exception of the pirates that had to throw their weapons overboard, their is no disincentive for them to try again.

"I watched the video. This was before we invaded Iraq. This does not mean that there were 150 Canadians in Iraq, but rather in the REGION. Big difference. They were problably part of Joint Command Hdqtrs and stationed in Kuwait and Bahrain. How many casualties did Canada suffer in Iraq? Answer: None." ,

It was three days before we invaded and they were not pulled out as the PM noted.

"If we pull out of NATO, it will cease to exist. I am not for abolishing NATO, but rather getting the members, including Canada, to start paying their fair share."

I am. It's a Cold War relic, and it's about to expand into places and incorprate members that are increasingly indefensible. If you want countries to pay their fare share...then make them seek bilaterial defense agreements with the U.S. This is amusing really...that I would value Canada's efforts while you do not, yet you want to keep NATO, whereas I would like to see it go.

"Duh. As I have mentioned, the US is going to find it increasingly more difficult to fund and staff DOD. The costs of servicing our debt is now over $400 billion a year, the third largest expense in the federal budget, behind the costs of the entitlement programs and DOD. Obama is doubling the national debt in five years, which will raise the annual costs of servicing the debt to over $800 billion. Obama proposes cutting DOD by 10%. We can't afford more for defense unless we start cutting elsewhere. Guns versus butter. The Europeans faced the same issue, and chose butter, i.e., to fund their generous social welfare system.. In addition to an aging population, the US through its pro-population growth policies is importing 1.2 million legal immigrants a year, most of them poor and uneducated. Today, one in three immigrants uses a major social welfare program. We are importing poverty. And we will add another 135 million people in the next 40 years [the equivalent of the combined populations of Canada and Mexico or France and Germany], three-quarters due to immigration. As a result, there is going to be more demand for scarce dollars. The US is currently the world's largest debtor nation.

Not much to argue about there.

"Read the report. There you go changing the subject and diverting attention away from Canada. I am well aware of the poor security on the southern border, but we also have growing problems on the northern border diverting resources from the southern border."

There you go again...protesting about logical comparisons. I don't believe for a moment that there's any 'resource' issues with regard to protecting our borders, there's just a massive failure of will. Yes, there are problems with whom Canada is letting into their country...but Mexico is a free-for-all, and a much bigger problem. More needs to be done on both borders, and by both Canada and Mexico...want to bet whom we get better cooperation from?

"Now that we have a Leftist President, will be loved more or less in Canada? Just as is the case in Europe, what Canadians may consider to be a Conservative is really a moderate Leftist. I don't think Harper will be pushing to get rid of socialized medicine in Canada."

I have to say, I could not care less if we are 'loved' or hated more or less, and in any event I think it's a poor question, since the Left will always hate America. If we have a leftist president, yes, the noisy Left will be happier, and the quiet right will be unhappy. I don't expect major conservative reform from Harper, but he's barely hanging on to power. If he had a massive majority in the parliament, he could achieve real reform...again, political leadership matters!

"Textbook example? Your words, not mine. The US had a difficult problem because both the UK and Argentina are allies. What did Canada do for the Queen in the Falklands?" Yes, my words, but you seem to be quite happy with the result. Now Argentina is an ally? Hardly. Agreed, that the U.S. was in a pickle, but mostly because of our own Monroe Doctrine and because of Cold War geopolitics. I'm sure Canada did whatever it was asked to do.

"I wish we would do more of it when it comes to reminding some of our ungrateful allies of what we did for them. Colin Powell mentioned one time that we never had designs on territory, just a small piece of land to bury our dead. When you have countries like France that don't allow you to fly over their territory to attack Libya, it is irksome. People have short memories, especially Europeans and Canadians."Agreed about the Europeans. Absense makes the heart grow fonder, so I say cut them loose. Let the defend their own countries. I don't think any of that applies to Canada however. We have never liberated Canada as we did the Europeans or provide critical support to them in their hour of need. Indeed, if thruth be known, we've invaded Canada on a couple of occasions.

"Why would we jump to the assistance of the UK and France on Suez? I suggest you read your history."

Because they ASKED for our help, as allies, and we turned them down because we didn't want to get involved in colonial wars. Canada made a similar judgment with our adventure in Iraq.

"As far as allies are concerned, if you are part of an organization like NATO, you are expected to pull your weight. Countries like France and Canada have not."

Well, that's the problem with NATO, no one pulls their full weight but the U.S. and the U.K. Still, I think Canada does far more good than France or deadbeat Germany does, and that was my original point.

"Shouldn't Canada spend more on defense than 1.1% of its GDP? $19 billion a year and a 65,000 man defense force just isn't adequate. Shouldn't Canada take a more active role in concert with the US in global defense matters?"

I would prefer they did, but I understand why they don't as I've already explained.

"I would be happen if they would do 1/10 or 1/13 of what we do. Run the numbers. We have 1.5 million active duty personnel under arms, Canada has 65,000. We spend more than $700 billion on defense and Canada spends $19 billion. Canada could and should do more. Why isn't it?"

Politics and a total lack of fear.

It was three days before we invaded and they were not pulled out as the PM noted.

The point is that there is no evidence on the link that Canadians served on the ground in Iraq. They may have served in the region, but not in-country.

I am. It's a Cold War relic, and it's about to expand into places and incorprate members that are increasingly indefensible.

Indefensible from whom?

If you want countries to pay their fare [sic] share...then make them seek bilaterial defense agreements with the U.S. This is amusing really...that I would value Canada's efforts while you do not, yet you want to keep NATO, whereas I would like to see it go.

Bilateral arrangments are not as strong as multilateral ones for many reasons. There is a reason NATO was created and not having the US enter into bilateral agreements throughout Europe. The framework exists, so why not build on it?

There you go again...protesting about logical comparisons. I don't believe for a moment that there's any 'resource' issues with regard to protecting our borders, there's just a massive failure of will. Yes, there are problems with whom Canada is letting into their country...but Mexico is a free-for-all, and a much bigger problem. More needs to be done on both borders, and by both Canada and Mexico...want to bet whom we get better cooperation from?

We need better security on both borders. And Canada can make a contribution by harmonizing its entry policies with the US. Resources are limited and becoming even more so as we descend ever deeper into debt.

If he had a massive majority in the parliament, he could achieve real reform...again, political leadership matters!

And how do all those Leftists get into parliament? Are you intimating that they don't represent the will of most Canadians?

Yes, my words, but you seem to be quite happy with the result. Now Argentina is an ally? Hardly. Agreed, that the U.S. was in a pickle, but mostly because of our own Monroe Doctrine and because of Cold War geopolitics. I'm sure Canada did whatever it was asked to do.

Yes, Argentina is an ally and friend. The Monroe Doctrine had nothing to do with our actions re the Falklands. What was Canada asked to do and what did it volunteer to do? You obviously didn't know the answer to my question and just make up an answer.

Agreed about the Europeans. Absense makes the heart grow fonder, so I say cut them loose. Let the defend their own countries. I don't think any of that applies to Canada however. We have never liberated Canada as we did the Europeans or provide critical support to them in their hour of need. Indeed, if thruth be known, we've invaded Canada on a couple of occasions.

Canada owes most of its prosperity to the US. We buy 85% of Canada's exports. Most of the population lives within 100 miles of the US border. And we have provided the security umbrella for it to prosper. And now that socialized medicine is in place, we make health care available to Canadians on a timely basis.

I would prefer they did, but I understand why they don't as I've already explained.

Your explanation doesn't pass muster. On the one hand you extoll how much of ally and friend Canada is, but then you attribute their failure to pull their own weight on defense to crass, calculating reasons, i.e., why do it when the US taxpayer can pick up the tab. With friends like that, who needs enemies?

Well, that's the problem with NATO, no one pulls their full weight but the U.S. and the U.K. Still, I think Canada does far more good than France or deadbeat Germany does, and that was my original point.

France pulled out of the military part of NATO a long time ago and is only recently indicating that they would like to join back in. Compared to Canada, Germany is far from a "deadbeat." Germany has 250,000 active duty personnel and spends 1.5% of its GDP on defense compared to Canada's 1.1%.

Because they ASKED for our help, as allies, and we turned them down because we didn't want to get involved in colonial wars. Canada made a similar judgment with our adventure in Iraq.

Canada views Iraq as an American colonial war. I gather you concur with that judgment calling it an "adventure." Iraq is part of the WOT. AQ, the same folks who attacked us on 9/11," called in the central front in their war against us. They were in Iraq before we got there. And Iraq harbored terrorists, invaded two of its neighbors, and used WMD against the Iranians and their own people, the Kurds. Iraq also violated 16 UN resoultions and were firing at US and UK aircraft on almost a daily basis as we tried to enforce the no-fly zones. I won't go into Saddam's mass murders or his skimming of the Oil for Food money that involved the French and Russians among others. Some adventure.

Politics and a total lack of fear..

As I said, with friends like this who needs enemies?

"The point is that there is no evidence on the link that Canadians served on the ground in Iraq. They may have served in the region, but not in-country."

That was not my point, that's your point, and you no full well from discussions on this thread that Canadian officers were serving alonside our troops in the theatre of operations, you just won't admit it.

"Indefensible from whom?"

NATO is about to accept as new members Croatia and Albania. Now expanding into the Balkans should be alarm bells for even the most casual observer of history, but extending it to dirt-poor, Muslim-majority Albania in the Balkans is beyond foolish. Add to this, designs of expanding it to places like Georgia, which is completely indefensible, and you have the makings of a U.N.-style alliance - one in name only, that can only get the U.S. embroiled in costly unwinnable foreign wars.

"Bilateral arrangments are not as strong as multilateral ones for many reasons."

I completely disagree. I think a U.S./U.K. bilateral alliance would be very strong.

"There is a reason NATO was created and not having the US enter into bilateral agreements throughout Europe. The framework exists, so why not build on it?

Yes, it was called Soviet invasion, but Germany and France aren't concerned about it. Personally, I really don't see Russia invading Europe anytime soon, but the best defense is a strong Europe, not one fat and lazy and looking to the U.S. an ocean away. You want to keep Russia in it's place? Get the Germans to rebuild their military.

"We need better security on both borders. And Canada can make a contribution by harmonizing its entry policies with the US. Resources are limited and becoming even more so as we descend ever deeper into debt."

Fine, fine.

"And how do all those Leftists get into parliament? Are you intimating that they don't represent the will of most Canadians?"

Look who's running the U.S. at the moment...

"Yes, Argentina is an ally and friend."

Ah...okay...guess I now know how to characterize your views: totally irrational. Argentina is an ally and friend but Canada should be endlessly reproached. Nonsense.

"The Monroe Doctrine had nothing to do with our actions re the Falklands. What was Canada asked to do and what did it volunteer to do? You obviously didn't know the answer to my question and just make up an answer."

It had plenty to do with our inaction, as did Cold War considerations, as I noted. Oh, was my answer wrong?? No, didn't think so.

"Canada owes most of its prosperity to the US. We buy 85% of Canada's exports. Most of the population lives within 100 miles of the US border. And we have provided the security umbrella for it to prosper. And now that socialized medicine is in place, we make health care available to Canadians on a timely basis."

Non sequitor.

"Your explanation doesn't pass muster. On the one hand you extoll how much of ally and friend Canada is, but then you attribute their failure to pull their own weight on defense to crass, calculating reasons, i.e., why do it when the US taxpayer can pick up the tab. With friends like that, who needs enemies?"

No, I never said they don't pull their weight, you did. I said they do more good given their modest military than much more powerful members of our 'alliance,' and it's plain to see why they of all countries don't spend unnecessarily on defense. That you can't seem to understand that is inexplicable.

"France pulled out of the military part of NATO a long time ago and is only recently indicating that they would like to join back in. Compared to Canada, Germany is far from a "deadbeat." Germany has 250,000 active duty personnel and spends 1.5% of its GDP on defense compared to Canada's 1.1%."

Nonsense. Total nonsense. You really are living in a fantasy world.

"Canada views Iraq as an American colonial war."

No, it was argument by analogy...again, something beyond your ability to assimilate.

"I gather you concur with that judgment calling it an "adventure." Iraq is part of the WOT. AQ, the same folks who attacked us on 9/11," called in the central front in their war against us. They were in Iraq before we got there. And Iraq harbored terrorists, invaded two of its neighbors, and used WMD against the Iranians and their own people, the Kurds. Iraq also violated 16 UN resoultions and were firing at US and UK aircraft on almost a daily basis as we tried to enforce the no-fly zones. I won't go into Saddam's mass murders or his skimming of the Oil for Food money that involved the French and Russians among others. Some adventure."

Yes, well as a I said, I think rational people can come to different judgments on the wisdom, utility and the timeliness of the need to invade Iraq, and no, I personally supported the invasion.

"As I said, with friends like this who needs enemies?"

Canada now is a functional enemy in your eyes. Unreal. Well, at least we've got Germany and Argentina according to you...what a complete joke. I'm done with this fantasy discussion.

That was not my point, that's your point, and you no full well from discussions on this thread that Canadian officers were serving alonside our troops in the theatre of operations, you just won't admit it.

No, it was your point that Canadians were involved in Iraq. Being in the region could be on a ship or in CENTCOM Forward HDQTRS. The point is were any of them ever in harm's way? Highly doubtful especially given Canada's political opposition to being involved in Iraq. Based on personal experience, I seriously doubt that DOD would ever put a Canadian officer in that position given the political ramifications.

NATO is about to accept as new members Croatia and Albania. Now expanding into the Balkans should be alarm bells for even the most casual observer of history, but extending it to dirt-poor, Muslim-majority Albania in the Balkans is beyond foolish. Add to this, designs of expanding it to places like Georgia, which is completely indefensible, and you have the makings of a U.N.-style alliance - one in name only, that can only get the U.S. embroiled in costly unwinnable foreign wars.

You still have not answered my question. What is the external threat to NATO? If it is Russia, then I see no need to disband it. I agree we should wait on Georgia, not because it is "indefensible," but because of the unstable political situation and the fact that Russian troops have been stationed in Georgia for about the last 15 years.

I completely disagree. I think a U.S./U.K. bilateral alliance would be very strong.

Stronger than NATO? What do we do about Germany, France, Spain, Italy, Greece, Turkey, etc.? How does a series of bilateral defense agreements strengthen our defensive posture compared to our existing arrangments under NATO?

Yes, it was called Soviet invasion, but Germany and France aren't concerned about it. Personally, I really don't see Russia invading Europe anytime soon, but the best defense is a strong Europe, not one fat and lazy and looking to the U.S. an ocean away. You want to keep Russia in it's place? Get the Germans to rebuild their military.

I don't understand the first statement. The Soviet Union no longer exists nor does East Germany and the Warsaw Pact. NATO was set up to counter a Soviet invasion and the spread of communism in post war Western Europe, which had suffered tremendous damage. NATO provided the security umbrella to allow Western Europe to recover.

Without the US, even a return to a half a million man German military will not be enough to "keep Russia in its place." Russia has nuclear weapons. Germany does not. We have never renounced a first use of nuclear weapons, tactical or otherwise, to defend Europe. That will keep Russia in its place. And the Russians no longer have the conventional forces to make a run thru the Fulda Gap, which is now completely within Germany. And Poland is now part of NATO along with the Czech Republic, Slovakia, Hugary, Bulgaria, Romania, Latvia, Lithuania, and Estonia.

Look who's running the U.S. at the moment...

If the current immigration policies remain in place, the changing demographics will make the Dems the permanent majority party and the US a third world country. By 2023 half of the children 18 and under will be minorities and by 2042 half of the country will be minorities, as defined by the USG. Today, one in 8 residents of this country is foreign born [the highest in more than 80 years] compared to one in 21 in 1970. Within in a decade it will be one in 7 the highest in our history and by 2050 it will be one in five foreign born. 87% of the 1.2 million LEGAL immigrants who enter this country annually are minorities. Immigrants and minorities vote Dem.

It had plenty to do with our inaction,

You are making a baseless assertion. And the fact is we provided the UK with more assistance than we did Argentina. Nor did we try to prevent the UK from retaking the Falklands. Reagan and Thatcher were on the same wavelength.

and it's plain to see why they of all countries don't spend unnecessarily on defense. That you can't seem to understand that is inexplicable.

LOL. And who decides what is "unnecessary?" A bunch of freeloaders including Canada.

Nonsense. Total nonsense. You really are living in a fantasy world.

Sorry, but you are entitled to your own opinion, but not your own facts. Germany contributes more to NATO and to the US in terms of defense than Canada, whether you use the metric of miltary bases, troops, money, etc.

Canada now is a functional enemy in your eyes. Unreal. Well, at least we've got Germany and Argentina according to you...what a complete joke. I'm done with this fantasy discussion.

Canada a "functional enemy?" LOL. You should change your moniker to canadianophile. You are the one living in a fantasy world. I lived in Berlin for four years [1983-87] before the Wall came down and in Poland for two years during the days of martial law and Solidarnosc. I also served a couple of years in Naples at a NATO base while in the USN, three years in Athens, and two years in Helsinki.

known as Operation Allied Protector

They should call it operation 'Aaargh Matey". Poke fun at them while the get kiled

Of course, they wouldn't understand.

This is such a wast of time. You're arguing in circles. You don't even realize the logical inconsistency of what you're arguing. You think Canada is a lousy ally because it didn't support its NATO ally, the USA, in combat missions in Iraq, but credit us with saving the day in the Falklands War by not committing combat troops to our NATO ally, Britain. When I point out that Canadians were actually serving in the Iraq thearte of operations through NATO officer exchange programs, you claim that it is insufficient assistance because they weren't in combat roles, but still trumpet the non-combat U.S. Falklands example. Whatever.

With regard to your statement, "Being in the region could be on a ship or in CENTCOM Forward HDQTRS. The point is were any of them ever in harm's way? Highly doubtful especially given Canada's political opposition to being involved in Iraq. Based on personal experience, I seriously doubt that DOD would ever put a Canadian officer in that position given the political ramifications."

Give me a break, countries are involved in military operations in covert or otherwise diplomaticallly deniable ways all the time. Here's a 2003 article you might be interested in however: "Lieut.-Col. Ronnie McCourt told CBC News, in an interview at command headquarters in Doha, Qatar, that some Canadians are on the front lines. "They are in combat," he said, "and there's always a risk there." Duceppe says five U.S. soldiers captured in Iraq were assigned to maintenance units. He says it's ludicrous to suggest that the Canadian soldiers in the region aren't involved."http://www.cbc.ca/news/story/2003/03/27/cdnsoldiers030327.html

"You still have not answered my question. What is the external threat to NATO? If it is Russia, then I see no need to disband it. I agree we should wait on Georgia, not because it is "indefensible," but because of the unstable political situation and the fact that Russian troops have been stationed in Georgia for about the last 15 years."

This is a curious line of departure from someone who earlier didn't want to 'change the subject' away from Canada, but I can see why you would want to now. NATO is simply outmoded, the external threat it was designed for - Soviet invasion is no longer a threat...or are you worried that Russia is going to launch a massive land invasion of nuclear-armed western Europe? Georgia by the way is completely indefensible, or do your propose the US seriously go to war with Russia in the Caucuses on Russia's southern border. Beyond fantasy.

"Stronger than NATO? What do we do about Germany, France, Spain, Italy, Greece, Turkey, etc.? How does a series of bilateral defense agreements strengthen our defensive posture compared to our existing arrangments under NATO?"

I'm chiefly concerned with defending the United States, so the fewer smaller, defenseless, countries we commit to defending, the fewer chances of us being pulled into foreign wars like in the Balkans or the Caucuses for crying out loud. If Afghanistan is a NATO mission, than bilateral U.S., British, Canadian and Australian agreements would serve just as well, since the other alliance members are serving in non-combat roles...the kind you excoritate Canada for.

"I don't understand the first statement. The Soviet Union no longer exists nor does East Germany and the Warsaw Pact. NATO was set up to counter a Soviet invasion and the spread of communism in post war Western Europe, which had suffered tremendous damage. NATO provided the security umbrella to allow Western Europe to recover."

All true.

"Without the US, even a return to a half a million man German military will not be enough to "keep Russia in its place." Russia has nuclear weapons. Germany does not."

Then Germany better getting moving if they're worried about Russia..which they're not. If Germany needs nukes, they can build and pay for them...why should we?

"We have never renounced a first use of nuclear weapons, tactical or otherwise, to defend Europe. That will keep Russia in its place. And the Russians no longer have the conventional forces to make a run thru the Fulda Gap, which is now completely within Germany. And Poland is now part of NATO along with the Czech Republic, Slovakia, Hugary, Bulgaria, Romania, Latvia, Lithuania, and Estonia."

Again, does anyone really believe the Russians are going to invade Europe NOW? NATO is pointless and its endless expansion is dangerous FOR US.

"If the current immigration policies remain in place, the changing demographics will make the Dems the permanent majority party and the US a third world country. By 2023 half of the children 18 and under will be minorities and by 2042 half of the country will be minorities, as defined by the USG. Today, one in 8 residents of this country is foreign born [the highest in more than 80 years] compared to one in 21 in 1970. Within in a decade it will be one in 7 the highest in our history and by 2050 it will be one in five foreign born. 87% of the 1.2 million LEGAL immigrants who enter this country annually are minorities. Immigrants and minorities vote Dem."

All true...but again, a non sequitur.

"You are making a baseless assertion. And the fact is we provided the UK with more assistance than we did Argentina. Nor did we try to prevent the UK from retaking the Falklands. Reagan and Thatcher were on the same wavelength"

The fact that you don't understand my point doesn't make it baseless. Could the UK have used American combat troops in the Falklands? Would such assistance not have made it much easier for them?? Of course...but we didn't...and it's because of political considerations, and those include both the Monroe Doctrine, and what an open repudiation of it would mean for Soviet and other expansion into our hemisphere. The fact that we did violate it in spirit is very different from sending troops. We were helping the U.K., but trying not to help too much, lest we blow all credibility in Latin America where we were fighting against communists.

"LOL. And who decides what is "unnecessary?" A bunch of freeloaders including Canada."

Hahaha...ya, they should spend 10% of their GDP on creating a massive military to fight the Danish in case they try to expand from Greenland.

"Sorry, but you are entitled to your own opinion, but not your own facts. Germany contributes more to NATO and to the US in terms of defense than Canada, whether you use the metric of miltary bases, troops, money, etc."

AHAHAHAHAHAHA! Nonsense. Germanophile.

"Canada a "functional enemy?" LOL. You should change your moniker to canadianophile. You are the one living in a fantasy world. I lived in Berlin for four years [1983-87] before the Wall came down and in Poland for two years during the days of martial law and Solidarnosc. I also served a couple of years in Naples at a NATO base while in the USN, three years in Athens, and two years in Helsinki."

I'll bet you have lots of neat passport stamps, Germanophile.

This is such a wast of time. You're arguing in circles. You don't even realize the logical inconsistency of what you're arguing. You think Canada is a lousy ally because it didn't support its NATO ally, the USA, in combat missions in Iraq, but credit us with saving the day in the Falklands War by not committing combat troops to our NATO ally, Britain.

I think you have a reading comprehension problem. You continue to toss in totally irrelevant associations. I never said that the US assistance in the Falkland War saved the day. I provided you with a link to a Time article that debunked that assertion that our assistance was the reason why the Brits were victorious. And you can't even provide any resopnse as to what Canada did to assist a fellow member of the Commonwealth. And then you are grasping at straws trying to show some sort of Canadian participation in Iraq. Nonsense.

Give me a break, countries are involved in military operations in covert or otherwise diplomaticallly deniable ways all the time. Here's a 2003 article you might be interested in however

Why would the Leftist Canadian government want this involvement to be covert or deniable? And I guess there were casualties as well? BS.

This is a curious line of departure from someone who earlier didn't want to 'change the subject' away from Canada, but I can see why you would want to now. NATO is simply outmoded, the external threat it was designed for - Soviet invasion is no longer a threat...or are you worried that Russia is going to launch a massive land invasion of nuclear-armed western Europe?

You were the one who suggested that a beefed up Germany would be a way to keep Russia "in its place." And you are against the expansion of NATO and want to dismantle it by replacing it with a bunch of bilateral defense agreements. I served 8 years as a naval officer including two years assigned to a NATO comnmand. You are talking thru your hat. With Europe devoting less and less funds to defense, it is far better they pool their resources and take on specific roles to coordinate the defense of Europe. If we didn't have NATO, we would have to invent something like it. NATO's mission will have to change if Europe wants to remain relevant globally.

Georgia by the way is completely indefensible, or do your propose the US seriously go to war with Russia in the Caucuses on Russia's southern border. Beyond fantasy.

There are two issues involved here. If defensibility is the criterion for deciding who can and cannot join, how defensible are the Baltic countries? If Gerogia and Ukraine have stable governments and meet the various criteria that NATO imposes on prospective members, then they should join. Do you believe that Russia would risk war with NATO over Georgia or Latvia? Russia should not be allowed to intimidate NATO members. They are trying to discourage the placement of our anti-missile defense systems in Poland and the Czech Republic.

The fact that you don't understand my point doesn't make it baseless. Could the UK have used American combat troops in the Falklands? Would such assistance not have made it much easier for them?? Of course...but we didn't...and it's because of political considerations, and those include both the Monroe Doctrine, and what an open repudiation of it would mean for Soviet and other expansion into our hemisphere.

I spent 28 years as a Foreign Service Officer. I have never heard anyone in the State Department refer to the Monroe Doctrine as the basis for our current foreign policy. Where do you come up with this stuff?

I'll bet you have lots of neat passport stamps, Germanophile.

Now that's original.

I think you’re getting your arguments mixed up.

1. You started by claiming that Canada was a bad ally because they didn’t join us in combat in Iraq or in Vietnam. I countered your assertion, by giving you the comparison that the U.S. didn’t assist the UK in the Suez Crisis or the Falklands despite the fact that the U.S. and U.K. are NATO allies, and I asked you if that made us lousy allies to the British by extension of the same logic.

2.You then countered by asserting that we did help Britain in the Falklands, stating: “I suggest you read the history of the Falklands war and see what assistance the US provided. And don't get me started about what the US did for Europe…”

3. Since your offer of proof of U.S. assistance to Britain in the Falklands War was strategic (and very modest) in nature, rather than in the form of combat troops, I submitted to you the argument that your earlier assertion was therefore baseless, and that: “if you're going to start counting strategic intelligence and other military assistance as evidence of a strong alliance, then your criticism of Canada is even more unfounded"…and continued in a later post, “Well, if this kind of logistical support amounts to substantial assistance from an ally, then Canada's actually having around 150 soldiers serving with U.S. and British forces, and under their command, during Iraqi Freedom counts too” You now claim to have submitted that article for the purposes of debunking your earlier assertion that the U.S. provided material assistance to the UK in the Falklands, “I provided you with a link to a Time article that debunked that assertion that our assistance was the reason why the Brits were victorious.” Proving my original point once again. Then you claimed that I might have a reading comprehension problem for not following you. WTF??

You go on… “And you can't even provide any resopnse as to what Canada did to assist a fellow member of the Commonwealth. And then you are grasping at straws trying to show some sort of Canadian participation in Iraq.”Again, it follows from the earlier discussion we had about you seeming to only value ‘combat’ assistance. In your words, “The point is that Canada has not been as loyal an allie as you make them out to be. After the Korean War, they have done very little with us militarily when it comes to real combat.” I simply noted that if the U.S.A.’s doing nothing but lending strategic aid to Britain in the Falklands counted in your mind as the actions of an ally, then Canadians actually serving in the theatre of operations in Iraq would certainly count as well. But then, who knows what point you’re trying to prove vis-à-vis the Falklands anymore, and since you count Argentina as a ‘friend and ally’ and think Germany’s contributions to NATO to be far greater than Canada’s…then who knows what to make of it.

“Why would the Leftist Canadian government want this involvement to be covert or deniable?

Ahh…is that a real question? Can you think of why a liberal prime minister whose re-election depends upon Canada staying out of the war would want to downplay the active role of Canadian forces? Can you think of a reason why Canada, who committed itself not to go to war unless the Security Council provided a new authorization would want to make it look as though it was appearing not to reverse course? Again however, the only reason I bring up Canada’s non-participation-participation, was to compare their strategic support of us, to our strategic support of the UK in the Falklands as a means of disproving your notion that only actual combat assistance counts in adjudging the steadfastness of an ally. Not to assert that Canada has played some great covert role in Iraq.

”And I guess there were casualties as well? BS.”Ah…no, I don’t think anyone claimed that. Certainly not me. Reading comprehension!!

Moving along...

“You were the one who suggested that a beefed up Germany would be a way to keep Russia "in its place." And you are against the expansion of NATO and want to dismantle it by replacing it with a bunch of bilateral defense agreements.

True and true. I guess you’re not following my point. I don’t think Russia is much of a threat to western Europe, er go, NATO has outlived its usefulness. Since the alternative, a grand Russian invasion of Europe is in my mind a fantasy, my point about a beefed up Germany is really hyperbole. In my mind, if I don’t think Russia is a threat, and Germany as evidenced by the size of their military isn’t concerned…what the hell do we need NATO for? As for bilateral agreements, I opt for them as a way of cutting out the deadwood and lessening the ‘entangling alliances’ that can only serve to pull the U.S. into unnecessary wars. Yes, I would rather just have an alliance with the U.K. for instance, than sit around arguing with the French and Germans and begging the Belgians for a plane or whatnot so we can take a ‘NATO’ action together. In case you didn’t realize it, all of our NATO allies on the continent just told us to ‘stuff it’ when it comes to additional combat troops for NATO action in Afghanistan. Moreover, the French and Germans won't allow their soldiers to be in combat roles there!! Though those miserable ‘do-nothing’ Canadians are there!

“I served 8 years as a naval officer including two years assigned to a NATO comnmand. You are talking thru your hat.”

Thanks for your service, but I don’t think I am.

”With Europe devoting less and less funds to defense, it is far better they pool their resources and take on specific roles to coordinate the defense of Europe. If we didn't have NATO, we would have to invent something like it. NATO's mission will have to change if Europe wants to remain relevant globally.”

This is really the kicker for me…how can you make this argument while lambasting Canada?????????UNBELIEVABLE!

According to you, Canada doesn’t pull it’s own weight in NATO, even though Canadians are fighting in Afghanistan at the moment in a NATO action that NATO-member Germany refuses to send combat troops to. Same with France. Canada’s military is a ‘joke’ and they are ‘freeloaders’ because they don’t spend enough money in your mind on defense, but it’s okay for Germany and France, with vastly larger populations and GDPs to depend on the U.S. to protect them so that they can devote ‘less and less funds to defense’ and ‘pool their resources and take on specific roles to coordinate the defense of Europe.’

AHAHAHAHAHA! Oh, the hypocrisy.

Then you go on, “If we didn't have NATO, we would have to invent something like it. NATO's mission will have to change if Europe wants to remain relevant globally.”

So, by your logic, in order to defend the Europeans, who won't defend themselves, and who won’t send combat troops to help us in Afghanistan despite being NATO allies, we would have to invent NATO if it didn’t exist. But, by the same token, we should tell the Canadians, who are currently fighting with us in Afghanistan to stuff it because they don’t pull their own weight and have done little to help us in terms of combat since Korea. Do you realize how crazy your positions are? You just can’t get enough of the deadbeat Germans, who won’t lift a finger for us, but the Canadians, oh man, endless enmity for them despite currently being in combat with us in Afghanistan.

On to an expanded NATO… “There are two issues involved here. If defensibility is the criterion for deciding who can and cannot join, how defensible are the Baltic countries?From who, Russia? Again, I don’t think the threat of Russian ground invasion is real, but if it were, they would not be defensible, since we aren’t going to start WW III and engage in a full-scale ground war with Russia and risk nuclear holocaust over Estonia.

If Gerogia and Ukraine have stable governments and meet the various criteria that NATO imposes on prospective members, then they should join.

No, I think NATO should not expand at all, and I would prefer that it be disbanded.

Do you believe that Russia would risk war with NATO over Georgia or Latvia?

I think Russia could swallow up these countries in a quick invasion before we could do anything about it…then we would be sitting there with no real alternatives, looking as impotent as we did when Russia invaded Georgia last year.

Russia should not be allowed to intimidate NATO members. They are trying to discourage the placement of our anti-missile defense systems in Poland and the Czech Republic.

True, but expanding the North Atlantic Treaty into the Caucuses is asking for trouble…what happened when the Soviet Union was in Cuba? We went ape-shit, and justifiably so. They feel the same way.

“I spent 28 years as a Foreign Service Officer. I have never heard anyone in the State Department refer to the Monroe Doctrine as the basis for our current foreign policy.”

This I totally believe! But again, I was arguing a narrow point about the Falklands, and the issue was much discussed at the time.

“Where do you come up with this stuff?”

James Monroe and Teddy Roosevelt.

If we could all please take a moment

:http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/2228651/posts?page=3

Hey, kabar ... see you still have your hard on for all things Canadian.
Preaching the same old sermon ... again.