No dispute there...it's always the U.S., U.K. and Canada. I give credit to Denmark and the Netherlands...but these are tiny countries and you know exactly who I'm referring to. NATO is a joke.
"Whatever the reason, Canada didn't join us in Iraq. The UK, Spain, Italy, and others were under no obligation to join us, but they did. Canada didn't join us in Vietnam either."
Yes, and every country you mention had conservative leaders at the time with the exception of the U.K. Leadership matters - countries don't take plebecites on whether they go to war. The Left is the Left everywhere. The U.K. didn't join us in Vietnam either though, so please, if you're going to hold that against Canada, than piss on the U.K. too huh? Of course we didn't help the U.K. in the Suez Crisis or in the Falklands...
"Canada's military has become a joke with just 50,000 personnel on active duty. Canada spends about 1% of its GDP on defense. And Afghanistan has weaked the military so much that the army must take a year off."
Canada shares a border with two NATO allies - Denmark, and the U.S., the world's only superpower...do you blame them for finding other spending priorities? Especially in light of having a population of just over 33 million people, about the same as California. If Canada with 33 million people, and 50,000 on active duty, spending 1% of GDP on their military is pathetic, then I assume you would make the same argument about the U.K., with a population of 66 million, with just 180,000 active duty, spending 2.4% of GDP...and you could make the same argumnet about the U.S. using similar raw data...numbers don't tell the whole story. Especially when you consider that Canada has suffered the 3rd highest combat deaths in Afghanistan. They are more than pulling their own weight there.
"The military may need a one-year break from operations starting July 2011 when the Afghanistan mission winds down, the head of Canada's army said Monday. Lt.-Gen. Andrew Leslie told the Senate defence committee Monday that the Canadian Forces have been strained by the mission that began seven years ago and need time to regroup."
The U.K. has taken a similar break by pulling almost completely out of Iraq. Smaller countries need breaks...and I'll bet our troops could use one too. France has taken a break since 1815.
"I am in no way diminishing the sacrifice of Canadian soldiers in Afghanistan, but Canada is not pulling its weight as a member of NATO generally and has allowed its military to wither and almost die. It is far easier to have the Americans shoulder the burden, both in blood and treasure."
No, referring to their military as a 'joke' and claiming that they're not pulling their weight...particulalry as members of NATO (despite being 3rd on the combat death list in Afghanistan) is no diminshment!
canadian population = 32 million approx.
USA = 300 million
USA economy probably well over 100x that of Canada
remove (ah) quebec from the picture... not much left, people that is:)
The US spends more on defense than the rest of NATO combined. The US forces are so far advanced from the rest that there are real questions of interoperability among members. And the US provides most of the logistics in Afghanistan. Canada's contributions are welcome but small.
Yes, and every country you mention had conservative leaders at the time with the exception of the U.K.
In Europe, conservative is a relative term. The people of the UK didn't support their presence in Iraq, but Blair had the courage to do it anyway.
The U.K. didn't join us in Vietnam either though, so please, if you're going to hold that against Canada, than piss on the U.K. too huh?
The point is that Canada has not been as loyal an allie as you make them out to be. After the Korean War, they have done very little with us militarily when it comes to real combat. The Australians have been far better in that regard.
Of course we didn't help the U.K. in the Suez Crisis or in the Falklands...
I suggest you read the history of the Falklands war and see what assistance the US provided. And don't get me started about what the US did for Europe during and after WWII. We have provided the security umbrella for Europe for almost 65 years and the Marshall Plan was essential to their recovery and economic resurgence.
Especially in light of having a population of just over 33 million people, about the same as California. If Canada with 33 million people, and 50,000 on active duty, spending 1% of GDP on their military is pathetic, then I assume you would make the same argument about the U.K.,with a population of 66 million, with just 180,000 active duty, spending 2.4% of GDP
First, let's talk about Canada and not be diverted by the UK, which I will address later. The Canadian forces are today funded by approximately $19 billion annually, and are presently ranked 46th in size compared to the world's other armed forces, and 55th in terms of active personnel, standing at a population of roughly 65,000, not including the 26,000 reservists. Its 1.1% of GDP spent on defense ranks 132nd in the world.
The UK has been in decline militarily and will continue to do so as it can no longer afford guns and butter. The British Empire has slowly receded as the UK made some hard choices, e.g., no forces East of Suez. The welfare state consumes more and more resources. As long as the US picks up most of the tab, the Europeans can luxuriate in their lifestyle and be critical of the US. Now that Obama is in charge, they can have the best of both worlds. They can control and direct what the US does, while we continue to pay the costs.
do you blame them for finding other spending priorities?
LOL. Of course I do. Why should the US taxpayer pay disproportionately for Canada's defense. Not to worry, the US is going to have to spend less on defense because we can't afford to be the world's lone superpower any longer. The huge, crushing national debt and rising entitlement costs will force us to choose butter over guns, just as it did in Europe and Canada.
Especially when you consider that Canada has suffered the 3rd highest combat deaths in Afghanistan. They are more than pulling their own weight there.
Canada is doing its duty in Afghanistan. You can use all of the data you want, but it is the US who is bearing the overwhelming burden in terms of costs and lives. How many Canadians credit the US for defending them since WWII? Certainly not those who boo our national anthem at the Special Olympics or at hockey games.
The U.K. has taken a similar break by pulling almost completely out of Iraq. Smaller countries need breaks...and I'll bet our troops could use one too. France has taken a break since 1815.
There you go again, changing the subject and attacking the UK and France. The US cannot afford to take a break and it seems ludicrous to me that the head of Canada's army suggests that they need a year off from operational duties. When has the UK or France made such a ridiculous statement?
No, referring to their military as a 'joke' and claiming that they're not pulling their weight...particulalry as members of NATO (despite being 3rd on the combat death list in Afghanistan) is no diminshment!
I can separate the individual sacrifice from national policy. Canda's rank as 132nd in the world in its expenditures on national defense as a percentage of GDP speaks for itself. It is a joke, but it is on the US taxpayer. I guess we indirectly subsidize the Canadian health system, i.s., less money on defense means more money for the social welfare system.