[americanophile]

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.

[kabar]

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.