Here is one view of the US contributions. Exaggerated perhaps, substantial yes.The Argentine military establishment had no trouble last week explaining why Britain was able to recapture the Falklands: massive U.S. military assistance
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."
Yeah right. Blame the victim. How do we end it? Don't these nations have the same responsibility as we have to support peace and freedom around the globe? And NATO expansion has nothing to do with nations sharing the burden. In fact, the new nations in NATO are doing more than Old Europe with the exception of the UK. I guess we can use withdrawal as a way to end this dependency. Let the Euros and Canada fend for themselves. We can't afford to be the global policeman any more.
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
What the hell are you talking about? The US has never talked about suspending all operational duties of our military. What kind of "break" are you referring to? We want to expand our military after the cutbacks during the peace dividend years of Clinton. The problem is that we can no longer afford both guns and butter. We are stretched too thin.
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.
It goes much deeper than that. Canada is unwilling to contribute its fair share of the defense burden. Anti-Americanism is rising. Our northern border is becoming more of a security threat due to Canada's lax policies on who they let into Canada. Immigration Policy and the Terrorist Threat in Canada and the United States
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.
We are talking about Canada. You can try to change the subject and divert attention elsewhere. Canada has done very little during the past 50 years in helping the US in a combat role. Yes, the 2,500 troops in Afghanistan are welcome and the deaths of 116 Canadians in combat are lamentable, but let's be real. Canada is not pulling its weight and the defense forces are in a dismal state. And for some reason, many Canadians are now whinning that they are making disproportionate sacrifices. And Americans must show how grateful they are. Give me a break. We have lost about 5,000 Americans in Iraq/Afghanistan with more than 30,000 wounded. Close to 200,000 troops have been committed. Try that in your numbers comparisons. I guess if Luxemburg sent some troops and lost 5 people, we can call their losses more per capita than the US or Canada.
Germany and France and Australia and Italy spend a greater percentage of their GDP on defense than Canada. Japan is about the same.
Well, if this kind of logistical support amounts to substantial assistance from an ally, then Canada's actually having around 150 soldiers serving with U.S. and British forces, and under their command, during Iraqi Freedom counts too. Yes, the Canadians had soldiers there: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iPVOhva_cwI
"Yeah right. Blame the victim. How do we end it? Don't these nations have the same responsibility as we have to support peace and freedom around the globe? And NATO expansion has nothing to do with nations sharing the burden. In fact, the new nations in NATO are doing more than Old Europe with the exception of the UK. I guess we can use withdrawal as a way to end this dependency. Let the Euros and Canada fend for themselves. We can't afford to be the global policeman any more."
I'm not assigning blame, nor do I consider us a victim. It is simply a fact that these nations spend less on their militaries because they don't have to. We protect them. We end it, the dependency that is, by pulling out of NATO and letting the Europeans garrison their own continent. We will always have a mutual security arrangement with Canada as it would be folly not to, and likely with nations such as Britain who continue to have congruent interests and the fortitude to do something about it.
"What the hell are you talking about? The US has never talked about suspending all operational duties of our military. What kind of "break" are you referring to? We want to expand our military after the cutbacks during the peace dividend years of Clinton. The problem is that we can no longer afford both guns and butter. We are stretched too thin."
Well, that's it precisely, our military is overburdened, and when that occurs it tells you that you need a few things: more personnel, equipment, and funding, and a little downtime. No, of course we would never claim a need to end all operational duties, but there has been ample discussion of our inability to continue fighting foreign wars at the current level. Just recently: "Strained by repeated war tours, persistent terrorist threats and instability around the globe, there is a significant risk the U.S. military may not be able to respond quickly and fully to new crises, a classified Pentagon assessment has concluded."(http://www.newsmax.com/newsfront/DoD_military_not_ready/2009/02/20/183712.html>
"It goes much deeper than that. Canada is unwilling to contribute its fair share of the defense burden. Anti-Americanism is rising. Our northern border is becoming more of a security threat due to Canada's lax policies on who they let into Canada. Immigration Policy and the Terrorist Threat in Canada and the United States"
Anti-Americanism has been the cause celeb in the last few years because the Left always hates America, and when led by a pro-American president, it becomes all-consuming for them. But there will always be America-haters. As for a lax immigration policy, I would think we would be the last people to complain about that...you could get Hannibal and his war elephants over the southern U.S. border without anyone noticing.
"We are talking about Canada. You can try to change the subject and divert attention elsewhere."
I have to say, I have never met anyone so resistant to comparison or analogy...I'm not trying to change the subject, I'm trying to put Canada's actions in context. Strange.
"Canada has done very little during the past 50 years in helping the US in a combat role."
It is odd to me, again by way of comparison, that you cite U.S. non-combat assistance to Britain in the Falklands War as a textbook example of faithful allied assistance, but lambaste Canada for limited combat roles despite our inseparable joint defense of N. America via NORAD, etc. Very much a double standard.
"Yes, the 2,500 troops in Afghanistan are welcome and the deaths of 116 Canadians in combat are lamentable, but let's be real. Canada is not pulling its weight and the defense forces are in a dismal state. And for some reason, many Canadians are now whinning that they are making disproportionate sacrifices. And Americans must show how grateful they are. Give me a break."
Frankly, I haven't heard too much from the Canadians in terms of demanding our gratitude. In fact, the demands for gratitude usually come from Americans reminding others about WWII, etc. I find it distasteful when anyone does it. In any event, I guess I have a different concept of 'allies' than you, since I think that two free and allied countries with similar interests could have come to different conclusions about the wisdom of war with Iraq without it being the end of the alliance. Just as we did not jump headlong into the Suez Crisis when Britain and France sought our assistance, Canada and other nations will not always follow us into the breach when we decide to take action. It doesn't mean were not allies...it means we have different interests at the time.
"We have lost about 5,000 Americans in Iraq/Afghanistan with more than 30,000 wounded. Close to 200,000 troops have been committed. Try that in your numbers comparisons. I guess if Luxemburg sent some troops and lost 5 people, we can call their losses more per capita than the US or Canada."
Well, at least now your getting the concept. I can't believe you would be of the opinion that Canada with less than 1/10 our population and 1/13 our GDP would, or possibly could, bare the same level of military burden. Could Canada do more? Sure, but so could every other allied nation in the world. Since WWII, the US has disproportionally shouldered the burden of the defense of the free world - mostly because no one else could, and we feared that no one else would.