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.
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.