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.
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?