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.
"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."
Agreed. I have long thought NATO useless and its expansion flatly dangerous...though I think Canada's contributions are disporportionalty large in comparison to many of the other members.
"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."
Chretein however did not, so you're really only proving my point. Bad leadership makes for bad policy, and when you have conservative leaders in power, you get better military policy.
"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."
I just don't think there is any rational basis for this assertion. I don't think there are two free and fully independent countries on the face of the earth that have as extensive and cooperatives ties as do the U.S. and Canada, and that includes defense. I respect what Australia has done, but if they had had Rudd instead of Howard, Australia wouldn't have gone with us either...and you'd be saying the same thing about them. You "separate the individual sacrifice from national policy," but you seem unable to seperate individual leadership or parties from national policy. Strange.
"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."
I don't seem to recall there being any U.S. combat troops in the Falklands, but if you're going to start counting strategic intelligence and other military assistance as evidence of a strong alliance, then your criticism of Canada is even more unfounded.
"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.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. "
I really don't disagree with any of this...I just find it puzzling that we agree to pick up the tab for everyone's military and then complain about it when they don't invest in large militaries. Canada is probably the safest country in the world outside of the U.S., it has no historic enemies and sits on top of the world's only superpower, it's closest ally. By analogy, if I lived next door to the police station, I guess I wouldn't spend huge amounts of my paycheck on expensive alarms and high fences. The Europeans do the same damn thing. We may not like it, but we created the dependency. I'm more than happy to end it, but were getting ready to expand NATO for some inexplicable reason."
"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."
Well, I would expect the U.S. to bear the burden in just about any conflict because of our hugely disproportionate power to any other military. I am sure we all know the score on defense since WWII, in which Canada I might add, acted admirably. It seems some Canadians have angered you, and there are plenty of snarky ones, particularly in Quebec, but you should seperate a long history of cooperation, friendship and mutual defense from rude fans at a hockey match.
"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?"
Well, I've never attacked the UK at all, whose assistance remains indispensible. Enough cannot be said about British sacrifices over the years. I've merely used them as a basis for comparison with Canada since they are all, NATO members, and the numbers compare well. I don't think either the UK or France have made such a statement, though I could be wrong, but operationally, no military can continue to go on indefinitely...everyone needs a break. Even the U.S., and we've had plenty of discussions about needing a break in past few years, especially with regard to the burdens placed on our national guardsmen and women. As for France taking a break, well, they haven't been active members of the NATO military command since 1966, so I would say they took one hell of a break, and when it counted most for defeating the Soviets.
"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."
Again, I think you're being very unfair given Canada's population and the GDP numbers are very misleading because of the size of the economies we're talking about. Yes, I would like to see Canada have a more robust military, but I would also like to see Germany and France and Japan and Australia and Italy and many others have stronger ones too. I guess I just save my criticism for those whose defense we provide and lifestyles we subsidize while they sit on their hands, as oppossed to those, like Canada, whose soldiers are more often than not with us, and are currently dyeing in Afghanistan right alongside us.