[NORAD] now seems to exist for no apparent reason. NORAD will continue to exist and adapt it's role under NORTHCOM. It makes more sense to continue this defense arrangement to protect our borders today, than it does to protect SK's borders halfway across the globe.
I do not accept that Canada or the other NATO countries have fulfilled their obligations under the defense treaties for more than a decade. They have underfunded their military, pushing more of the burden on the US, while at the same time promoting anti-Americanism against troop presence for political purposes. They have used the tax revenue saved from underfunding their defense programs to buttress socialistic structures that would have been unaffordable otherwise. By the way, Canada has not spent 3% GDP on their military in a LONG LONG time.
If you are not adult, then you are no different than the student protestors that you are so angry about.
I'm not angry about the student protestors. I wasn't angry about the inconvenience or threat to myself and my family the many differnt types and groups of protestors presented every week demonstrating outside the gates of our military bases. I find it completely unacceptable that the MAJORITY of Korean people have allowed themselves to become so arrogant and ungrateful. And no, it's not just because America has risked and sacrificed her blood in defense of the Korean people's freedom, but because we have also invested our time, money and friendship in her success. So the consequences become insignificant (especially given their limit) while a majority of the Korean people think more of themselves than their American partners.
As far as Roh's support for our efforts in Iraq. Roh made a deal to send 700 non-combatant troops from medical and construction units to Iraq, in exchange for greater influence in the US approach to North Korea. Know how many have arrived? SK did not support us. An opinion poll conducted by the presidential Blue House, released on Wednesday (2 April, 2003), indicated 86.3% of the public was opposed to the war. It had little to do with the number of North Korean military on the DMZ. The fact that Roh might be hurt by the same the same anti-Americanism that got him elected doesn't bother me. Blair's not being hurt the same way, his is political opposition, not popular opposition.
I am suggesting that this is not a position that will win you support in the war on terror. I have also suggested that it will hurt your crediblity on the international stage. No one has put foreward an arguement that demonstrates that I am mistaken in my belief.
There is an important difference between being right, being popular and being influential. The liberal lefties always want to be popular, whether or not what they are doing is right or that makes them influential. But the US is influential, whether we are popular or right. So it is more important to be using our influence for what is right, regardless if that makes us popular with those that already mistrust, dislike or despise us. I personally wear as a badge of honor the fact that we are fighting against people who trust Usama Bin Laden to do the right thing more than any other world leader. Credibility is a commodity that is proven over time. We are angry with France and Germany because they accused us of motivations and actions that contradicted our proven credibility over time - in their own countries!!!! We were not liked in continental Europe or Asia after WWII. I doubt we will be liked in much of the world as we confront Kim Jung Il and the leaders of Islamic zealotry around the world. That doesn't make us less credible, or less right - and I'm not too concerned about how popular we are because we are too influential.
So, you have a choice. Hate us while you live under our protection and accept our money, or protect yourselves and live without taking our money. I think that's what the North Korean government promotes to its people. I personally think the South Korean people should be ashamed, and the world will need to find a way to carry more of the burden and responsibility for what's wrong in the world and their own countries - instead of conveniently blaming US for it.
This is the site I accessed for Cdn defence spending,
http://www.cda-cdai.ca/library/Fincomsubcharts.htm the last date it shows is 1999. The time frame you gave me was 1946 to 1991.
"I do not accept that Canada or the other NATO countries have fulfilled their obligations under the defense treaties for more than a decade".
I would suggest that Canada has maintained it's defense obligations until the end of the Mulroney years and after the collapse of the Soviet Union. If your position is that they have not met their commitments after that time, the last decade, I agree that you are correct. However the Canadian Government met it's commitments while the USSR posed a threat, that was the orginal purpose of NORAD and NATO. In my opinion these organizations should have been disbanded after the end of the Cold War.
NORTHCOM is a strictly US show where Canadians are occasionally allowed to have a look around. I realize it can become a chicken and egg arguement but if Canada has no say in the decision makeing process it is hard to expect us to be enthusiastic about spending money on it.
"I find it completely unacceptable that the MAJORITY of Korean people have allowed themselves to become so arrogant and ungrateful."
If you are lamenting the lack of respect from foriegn countries you have helped out join the club. All Canada got for bleeding itself white in France in the First and Second World Wars was "vive Quebec libre" from Charles DeGalle. I do have a question though, do you think the Iraqis are going to appreciate you forty years from now?
"As far as Roh's support for our efforts in Iraq. Roh made a deal to send 700 non-combatant troops from medical and construction units to Iraq, in exchange for greater influence in the US approach to North Korea."
That is how he justified the move to the press. Do you think he has recieved greater influence, in everything that I read he is moving closer to the US "hardline" position. One would think if he recieved greater influence it would have resulted in a softening of the US position.
"SK did not support us."
I seem to remember Pres. Bush thanking those counties who sent no people at all but who spoke out in support of the US' right to take action. I believe we are in agreement that the ROK has done more than this.
Has Japan sent troops, they have the second highest defense expenditures in the world, they are an island and don't have hundreds of thousands of enemy soldiers camped a few miles from there capital. Are you going to pull out of Japan too?
As for the poll, I have very little faith in them, they tend to show what the person asking the question wants them to show. Look at the polls on "a woman's right to choose", I don't believe that these feminista polls accurately reflect the views of most people on abortion.
"There is an important difference between being right, being popular and being influential."
I agree with your statements on being right, popular and influential for the most part. I am certainly in favor of the war on terror because I believe it is right. I believe that leaders lead and if they are right often enough they will become popular.
"Credibility is a commodity that is proven over time."
I think that this statement is incomplete, I believe that it is possible to throw way hard earned credibility with a single careless act. Look at what has happened to Canada's credibility because a few people voted for Cretin. When GHW decided that it was necessary to go to war in the gulf the first foriegn leader he contacted was the Canadian PM Brian Mulroney; he and Mulroney still meet and are close friends. I doubt GW even take Cretins phone calls. GW has credibility because he has always done what he says he is going to do and he has always stood by his allies. The suggestions that have been made earlier posters that cuting and running in the middle of the nuclear crisis will not hurt his credibility are in my opinion not well thought out.
I do not believe that I have expressed hated for the US in any of my posts. If you feel that their will be no costs associated with bailing out of Korea then by all means do so. I think you will find that GW and his advisors will see costs where you see none.