I watched the video. This was before we invaded Iraq. This does not mean that there were 150 Canadians in Iraq, but rather in the REGION. Big difference. They were problably part of Joint Command Hdqtrs and stationed in Kuwait and Bahrain. How many casualties did Canada suffer in Iraq? Answer: None.
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.
If we pull out of NATO, it will cease to exist. I am not for abolishing NATO, but rather getting the members, including Canada, to start paying their fair share.
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."
Duh. As I have mentioned, the US is going to find it increasingly more difficult to fund and staff DOD. The costs of servicing our debt is now over $400 billion a year, the third largest expense in the federal budget, behind the costs of the entitlement programs and DOD. Obama is doubling the national debt in five years, which will raise the annual costs of servicing the debt to over $800 billion. Obama proposes cutting DOD by 10%. We can't afford more for defense unless we start cutting elsewhere. Guns versus butter. The Europeans faced the same issue, and chose butter, i.e., to fund their generous social welfare system..
In addition to an aging population, the US through its pro-population growth policies is importing 1.2 million legal immigrants a year, most of them poor and uneducated. Today, one in three immigrants uses a major social welfare program. We are importing poverty. And we will add another 135 million people in the next 40 years [the equivalent of the combined populations of Canada and Mexico or France and Germany], three-quarters due to immigration. As a result, there is going to be more demand for scarce dollars. The US is currently the world's largest debtor nation.
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.
Read the report. There you go changing the subject and diverting attention away from Canada. I am well aware of the poor security on the southern border, but we also have growing problems on the northern border diverting resources from the southern border.
Now that we have a Leftist President, will be loved more or less in Canada? Just as is the case in Europe, what Canadians may consider to be a Conservative is really a moderate Leftist. I don't think Harper will be pushing to get rid of socialized medicine in Canada.
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.
Textbook example? Your words, not mine. The US had a difficult problem because both the UK and Argentina are allies. What did Canada do for the Queen in the Falklands? .
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.
I wish we would do more of it when it comes to reminding some of our ungrateful allies of what we did for them. Colin Powell mentioned one time that we never had designs on territory, just a small piece of land to bury our dead. When you have countries like France that don't allow you to fly over their territory to attack Libya, it is irksome. People have short memories, especially Europeans and Canadians.
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.
Why would we jump to the assistance of the UK and France on Suez? I suggest you read your history. As far as allies are concerned, if you are part of an organization like NATO, you are expected to pull your weight. Countries like France and Canada have not. Shouldn't Canada spend more on defense than 1.1% of its GDP? $19 billion a year and a 65,000 man defense force just isn't adequate. Shouldn't Canada take a more active role in concert with the US in global defense matters?
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.
I would be happen if they would do 1/10 or 1/13 of what we do. Run the numbers. We have 1.5 million active duty personnel under arms, Canada has 65,000. We spend more than $700 billion on defense and Canada spends $19 billion.
Canada could and should do more. Why isn't it?
It was three days before we invaded and they were not pulled out as the PM noted.
"If we pull out of NATO, it will cease to exist. I am not for abolishing NATO, but rather getting the members, including Canada, to start paying their fair share."
I am. It's a Cold War relic, and it's about to expand into places and incorprate members that are increasingly indefensible. If you want countries to pay their fare share...then make them seek bilaterial defense agreements with the U.S. This is amusing really...that I would value Canada's efforts while you do not, yet you want to keep NATO, whereas I would like to see it go.
"Duh. As I have mentioned, the US is going to find it increasingly more difficult to fund and staff DOD. The costs of servicing our debt is now over $400 billion a year, the third largest expense in the federal budget, behind the costs of the entitlement programs and DOD. Obama is doubling the national debt in five years, which will raise the annual costs of servicing the debt to over $800 billion. Obama proposes cutting DOD by 10%. We can't afford more for defense unless we start cutting elsewhere. Guns versus butter. The Europeans faced the same issue, and chose butter, i.e., to fund their generous social welfare system.. In addition to an aging population, the US through its pro-population growth policies is importing 1.2 million legal immigrants a year, most of them poor and uneducated. Today, one in three immigrants uses a major social welfare program. We are importing poverty. And we will add another 135 million people in the next 40 years [the equivalent of the combined populations of Canada and Mexico or France and Germany], three-quarters due to immigration. As a result, there is going to be more demand for scarce dollars. The US is currently the world's largest debtor nation.
Not much to argue about there.
"Read the report. There you go changing the subject and diverting attention away from Canada. I am well aware of the poor security on the southern border, but we also have growing problems on the northern border diverting resources from the southern border."
There you go again...protesting about logical comparisons. I don't believe for a moment that there's any 'resource' issues with regard to protecting our borders, there's just a massive failure of will. Yes, there are problems with whom Canada is letting into their country...but Mexico is a free-for-all, and a much bigger problem. More needs to be done on both borders, and by both Canada and Mexico...want to bet whom we get better cooperation from?
"Now that we have a Leftist President, will be loved more or less in Canada? Just as is the case in Europe, what Canadians may consider to be a Conservative is really a moderate Leftist. I don't think Harper will be pushing to get rid of socialized medicine in Canada."
I have to say, I could not care less if we are 'loved' or hated more or less, and in any event I think it's a poor question, since the Left will always hate America. If we have a leftist president, yes, the noisy Left will be happier, and the quiet right will be unhappy. I don't expect major conservative reform from Harper, but he's barely hanging on to power. If he had a massive majority in the parliament, he could achieve real reform...again, political leadership matters!
"Textbook example? Your words, not mine. The US had a difficult problem because both the UK and Argentina are allies. What did Canada do for the Queen in the Falklands?" Yes, my words, but you seem to be quite happy with the result. Now Argentina is an ally? Hardly. Agreed, that the U.S. was in a pickle, but mostly because of our own Monroe Doctrine and because of Cold War geopolitics. I'm sure Canada did whatever it was asked to do.
"I wish we would do more of it when it comes to reminding some of our ungrateful allies of what we did for them. Colin Powell mentioned one time that we never had designs on territory, just a small piece of land to bury our dead. When you have countries like France that don't allow you to fly over their territory to attack Libya, it is irksome. People have short memories, especially Europeans and Canadians."Agreed about the Europeans. Absense makes the heart grow fonder, so I say cut them loose. Let the defend their own countries. I don't think any of that applies to Canada however. We have never liberated Canada as we did the Europeans or provide critical support to them in their hour of need. Indeed, if thruth be known, we've invaded Canada on a couple of occasions.
"Why would we jump to the assistance of the UK and France on Suez? I suggest you read your history."
Because they ASKED for our help, as allies, and we turned them down because we didn't want to get involved in colonial wars. Canada made a similar judgment with our adventure in Iraq.
"As far as allies are concerned, if you are part of an organization like NATO, you are expected to pull your weight. Countries like France and Canada have not."
Well, that's the problem with NATO, no one pulls their full weight but the U.S. and the U.K. Still, I think Canada does far more good than France or deadbeat Germany does, and that was my original point.
"Shouldn't Canada spend more on defense than 1.1% of its GDP? $19 billion a year and a 65,000 man defense force just isn't adequate. Shouldn't Canada take a more active role in concert with the US in global defense matters?"
I would prefer they did, but I understand why they don't as I've already explained.
"I would be happen if they would do 1/10 or 1/13 of what we do. Run the numbers. We have 1.5 million active duty personnel under arms, Canada has 65,000. We spend more than $700 billion on defense and Canada spends $19 billion. Canada could and should do more. Why isn't it?"
Politics and a total lack of fear.