Posted on 04/11/2009 9:08:53 PM PDT by adanaC
My comments were directed at your claim that Canada was one of our strongest allies. We provided the UK with whatever assistance they requested in the Falklands War. They did not ask for troops from any of their NATO allies, including Canada. You seem obsessed with the Falklands War, which you continue erronerously to compare with the situation in Iraq. They are not analogous for so many reasons.
Again however, the only reason I bring up Canada’s non-participation-participation,
What a ridiculous claim. Canada's participation in Iraq was/is non-existent. To claim otherwise is just ridiculous. Maybe there was an American officer secunded to the British Army during the Falklands War and thus, using your rationale, America participated in the war. Give me a break.
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.
Argentina was designated in 1998 by the USG as a Major non-NATO ally (MNNA), which is given to exceptionally close allies who have close strategic working relationships with American forces but are not members of NATO. While the MNNA status does not automatically include a mutual defense pact with the United States, it does confer a variety of military and financial advantages that otherwise are not obtainable by countries.
Germany does contribute more to NATO than Canada. Its military is about four times larger. It has 3,500 troops in Afghanistan [and has been there since August 2003] making it the third largest contributor. It has been part of Kosovo Force [KFOR] since 1999. KFOR has 34 countries (including all NATO members apart from Iceland and Canada) take part, with a total of around 15,500 troops. With approximately 2600 troops Germany is the largest troop contributor. Operation ACTIVE ENDEAVOUR in the Mediterranean since October 2001. At present 8 NATO nations and Ukraine take part, with a total of around 2000 troops. Germany contributes either a frigate or a submarine to the operation on a rotating basis. Germany has been hosting training programs for Iraqi security and logistic forces. And Germany pays a much larger share of NATO's budget.
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?
This is prima facie evidence that the majority of Canadians do not support the US "adventure [your description]" in Iraq.
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?
Germany's military is four times the size of Canada's and it has conscription. Since the fall of the Wall, the reunification of Germany, and the expansion of NATO, Germany is no longer on the frontlines vis-a-vis Russia. Four countries like Poland, other former Warsaw Pact countries, and the Baltic states, NATO is the security blanket they need to protect them from Russian revanchism. One only need to read some history books to understand why these fears exist. And anyone who has ever travelled or lived in these countries knows how important the admission to NATO is. And NATO derives its credence and strength from one source and one source only, the USA.
Eliminating NATO at this juncture of history would have far reaching consequences substantively and psychologically. It would be a disaster.
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.’
There you go with your liberal tactics, change the subject and attack. I am just as critical of Germany and France as I am of Canada when it comes to defense spending and the lack of support. But we are discussing Canada and its defense policies and expenditures. You sound like the teenage complaining to his parents about all the other kids are doing it. And it really gets tiresome to hear the whinning about Canadians fighting in Afghanstian and how unfair it is that they are taking disproportionate casualties. As an American, I just don't think you must be congratulated on doing one's duty. Yes the 2500 troops are welcomed and the 116 deaths deserve respect and praise, but Americans have done so much more in its contributions of blood and treasure for far longer.
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.
If that happened NATO would cease to exist. It would no longer have any credibility externally or among its members. Article 5 would be a joke. The Soviet Union believed that NATO was a credible alliance. Are you saying that Russia would attack and occupy a NATO member without fear of military retaliation? I hope that is not the case because it would result in a war.
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.
This is the kind of moral equivalency that the Leftists use. We went through this when stationing missiles in Turkey. NATO poses no offensive military threat to Russia. We are not pounding our shoe on the desk threatening to bury Russia. NATO is a collection of democracies. If Russia harbors aggressive intentions, then it demonstrates the need for NATO. FYI: Russia has been given observer status on NATO operations.
This I totally believe! But again, I was arguing a narrow point about the Falklands, and the issue was much discussed at the time.
You can believe what you want. Reality is far different. The Monroe Doctrine has not been part of our foreign policy for a long, long time. And it was certainly not cited or used during the Falklands War to prevent the UK from acting in its own self-interest or to prevent our participation.
"My comments were directed at your claim that Canada was one of our strongest allies. We provided the UK with whatever assistance they requested in the Falklands War. They did not ask for troops from any of their NATO allies, including Canada."
Amusing. When I made the same point in the exact same fashion, you derided my failure to answer and told me to read up on the history of the Falklands and railed on Canada for it's apparent failure to assist a fellow 'member of the Commonwealth.'...'round and 'round we go.
"You seem obsessed with the Falklands War, which you continue erronerously to compare with the situation in Iraq. They are not analogous for so many reasons."
It is a perfect example in that provides an occasion to compare a U.S. failure to join in combat with a NATO ally against a non-NATO transgressor, just as one can compare Canada's failure to join with NATO members USA and UK against a non-NATO tramsgressor. Particularly since you made it clear that only combat counts when adjudging the value of an ally...unless of course you're Germany.
"What a ridiculous claim. Canada's participation in Iraq was/is non-existent. To claim otherwise is just ridiculous. Maybe there was an American officer secunded to the British Army during the Falklands War and thus, using your rationale, America participated in the war. Give me a break."
I feel like I'm having to teach someone the hearsay rule. It's offered to show that Canada's actually having embedded officers is at least as useful as the U.S. selling bullets to the British in the Falklands, since YOU made the claim that the USA DID help NATO ally Britain in the Falklands, despite not being in combat.
"Argentina was designated in 1998 by the USG as a Major non-NATO ally (MNNA), which is given to exceptionally close allies who have close strategic working relationships with American forces but are not members of NATO. While the MNNA status does not automatically include a mutual defense pact with the United States, it does confer a variety of military and financial advantages that otherwise are not obtainable by countries."
They can designate Argentina the Queen of the Atlantic if they want to, but by the standard that YOU set out to judge an ally, they are totally useless. If you recall: “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.” When has Argentina gone into combat with the U.S.? Did Argentinean planes fly sorties over America after 9/11? Does Argentina daily partner with us in the defense of North America via NORAD? Are Argentineans fighting with us in Afghanistan? Again, a pathetic double standard that you apply to Canada, but not Argentina. What utter nonsense.
“Germany does contribute more to NATO than Canada.
Oh, here we go again. Talk about prime facia nonsense. Canada is actually fighting, at present, in combat, in a NATO engagement…the ONLY time the NATO charter has been evoked in a combat situation. Germany, by contrast, REFUSES to send combat troops. Your argument is demonstrably false…I can’t believe you continue to make it.
“Its military is about four times larger.”
So what…it doesn’t use it!!!!Ever!!
“It has 3,500 troops in Afghanistan [and has been there since August 2003] making it the third largest contributor.”
Hahaha…third largest contributor to what, barracks guarding? The Germans REFUSE to put their troops in combat, so their presence there is for show and your praise of them is a slap in the face to those allies, like Canada, who are actually engaged in the fighting.
”It has been part of Kosovo Force [KFOR] since 1999. KFOR has 34 countries (including all NATO members apart from Iceland and Canada) take part, with a total of around 15,500 troops. With approximately 2600 troops Germany is the largest troop contributor.”
Please…Europe sat helplessly as Kosovo degenerated, and when the time came to do something about it, we both know who did the heavy lifting. As usual, the useless Germans waited for the green light then marched their non-combat troops into to stand around and keep the peace in the rear. Pathetic.
“Operation ACTIVE ENDEAVOUR in the Mediterranean since October 2001. At present 8 NATO nations and Ukraine take part, with a total of around 2000 troops. Germany contributes either a frigate or a submarine to the operation on a rotating basis. Germany has been hosting training programs for Iraqi security and logistic forces. And Germany pays a much larger share of NATO's budget.”
Oh please, this attempt to show Germany pulling its own weight but denying that Canada does, is beyond pathetic. Floating around Gibraltar escorting cargo ships in case of terrorist attack is hardly the combat standard that you set for Canada. Just pathetic.
“This is prima facie evidence that the majority of Canadians do not support the US "adventure [your description]" in Iraq.”
What’s your point? Allied countries can’t disagree? (Hence the Falklands and Suez examples) Do you think a majority of Germans do? No…in fact along with the French, the Germans actively sought to undermine our efforts in the run up to Iraq, Canada passively didn’t participate, but then they’re bad allies and Germany is beyond reproach for you…hahahaha. Unreal.
“Germany's military is four times the size of Canada's and it has conscription.”
So what, if they’re never going to use it? Which they don’t. My dick might be twice the size of yours, but if I always keep it in my pants, it doesn’t do much good.
“Since the fall of the Wall, the reunification of Germany, and the expansion of NATO, Germany is no longer on the frontlines vis-a-vis Russia.” Four countries like Poland, other former Warsaw Pact countries, and the Baltic states, NATO is the security blanket they need to protect them from Russian revanchism. One only need to read some history books to understand why these fears exist. And anyone who has ever travelled or lived in these countries knows how important the admission to NATO is. And NATO derives its credence and strength from one source and one source only, the USA.”
I understand all that, but it doesn’t mean I take the same approach. Do you really think Russia is going to invade Poland again? If so, at what point should Europe provide the guarantee for Poland’s safety? Should the U.S. be forever committed to guaranteeing the safety of an entire continent of people 5,000 miles away? A continent that has more than twice the number of citizens that we do, and a combined GDP larger than our own? It’s time the Europeans provided for their own defense, and if the former satellite states need protection from Russia, then the European Union to which they belong or are seeking admission ought to provide if for them, they are more than capable of doing so if they decide to get off their asses. You’re the one that wanted to keep Europe ‘relevant’…fine, let them pay for their defense, they’ll have less money to spend on their massive welfare states, and perhaps a greater appreciation of the burdens of liberty.
“Eliminating NATO at this juncture of history would have far reaching consequences substantively and psychologically. It would be a disaster.”
Ya, it would be a disaster for a lot of fat, lazy government-dependent Germans and Frenchmen, and for a lot of old Cold Warriors who are resistant to change and have come to believe that the defense of Europe, whether or not the Europeans want it, and despite their not lifting a finger, is our duty…instead of the defense of the United States. Even the former Secretary General of NATO questions its purpose. NATO’s mission ended in 1991 when the Warsaw Pact dissolved, and since that time it’s been a relic. The best thing we can do, is pull out, return to making defense decisions that benefit the United States, and let the Europeans take the costly and necessary steps to build their own deterrent force.
“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.’”There you go with your liberal tactics, change the subject and attack. I am just as critical of Germany and France as I am of Canada when it comes to defense spending and the lack of support. But we are discussing Canada and its defense policies and expenditures. You sound like the teenage complaining to his parents about all the other kids are doing it. And it really gets tiresome to hear the whinning about Canadians fighting in Afghanstian and how unfair it is that they are taking disproportionate casualties. As an American, I just don't think you must be congratulated on doing one's duty.”(Unless you are Germany, lol.) ”Yes the 2500 troops are welcomed and the 116 deaths deserve respect and praise, but Americans have done so much more in its contributions of blood and treasure for far longer.”(duh!).
I’m amused of course that you start your argument about me using liberal tactics by employing the ad hominem. That said, this is the essence of the debate we were having…Canada’s efforts…and you can’t discuss the value of one ally unless you have something to compare it to, hence the comparisons to other NATO members, which seems to twist your mind so.
”If that happened NATO would cease to exist. It would no longer have any credibility externally or among its members. Article 5 would be a joke. The Soviet Union believed that NATO was a credible alliance. Are you saying that Russia would attack and occupy a NATO member without fear of military retaliation? I hope that is not the case because it would result in a war.”
This could have been written in 1970…you need to move past this line of thinking. NATOs mission is over, and unless we go looking for trouble in the Caucuses or elsewhere on Russia’s doorstep, we won’t have a war with them.
“This is the kind of moral equivalency that the Leftists use.”
No, it’s not moral equivalency at all, it’s just geopolitical reality. “We went through this when stationing missiles in Turkey.”
The one’s the Russians forced us to pull out?
“NATO poses no offensive military threat to Russia. We are not pounding our shoe on the desk threatening to bury Russia. NATO is a collection of democracies. If Russia harbors aggressive intentions, then it demonstrates the need for NATO. FYI: Russia has been given observer status on NATO operations.”
What the Russians object to is American presence all around them, so once again, the best thing for Europe is to let Europe defend itself, it also happens to be the best thing for America, and it would probably have the effect of calming the paranoid Russians, whose cooperation we could use in dealing with Iran...and at very least, whose non-cooperation with Iran would be helpful.
“You can believe what you want. Reality is far different. The Monroe Doctrine has not been part of our foreign policy for a long, long time. And it was certainly not cited or used during the Falklands War to prevent the UK from acting in its own self-interest or to prevent our participation.”
I have to say, you are the only person that I’ve ever spoken to that didn’t think the Monroe Doctrine played a role in our relations with the western hemisphere, and didn’t think that the Falklands War had implications for the Doctrine. Just to prove that discussion about it continues, here’s an article from Foreign Policy In Focus from February of this year discussing the Monroe Doctrine, and steps Obama could take to improve relations within our hemisphere. It notes, in part:” President Dwight D. Eisenhower used the doctrine in 1954 to justify the overthrow of a democratically elected government in Guatemala. President John F. Kennedy embraced it from 1961 to 1963 in attacking Cuba, and President Lyndon B. Johnson raised its banner in 1965 when he sent 23,000 Marines into the Dominican Republic in support of generals who tyrannically governed the country over the next 13 years. President Ronald Reagan said it was the basis for the CIA wars he pursued in Nicaragua, El Salvador, and Guatemala during which more than 200,000 Central Americans died, as well as the U.S. attack on Grenada….Nearly two decades after the Cold War's demise, U.S. policy elites still cling to this doctrine as an axiom of U.S. policy.” http://www.fpif.org/fpiftxt/5830
I do so tire of proving you wrong.
Listen, it's been an interesting discussion. I thank you for your service to our nation, and for your thoughts. I hope at some point you will have the intellectual honesty to reevaluate your position regarding Canada, and at very least hold it to the same standard that you use to adjudge our other 'allies.' We don't always agree with Canada, nor they us, and we may wish them on occasion to do more in the cause of liberty, but they do not deserve the disrespect that you show them, and some of us believe they deserve our appreciation.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.