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.
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?