The point is that there is no evidence on the link that Canadians served on the ground in Iraq. They may have served in the region, but not in-country.
I am. It's a Cold War relic, and it's about to expand into places and incorprate members that are increasingly indefensible.
Indefensible from whom?
If you want countries to pay their fare [sic] 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.
Bilateral arrangments are not as strong as multilateral ones for many reasons. There is a reason NATO was created and not having the US enter into bilateral agreements throughout Europe. The framework exists, so why not build on it?
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?
We need better security on both borders. And Canada can make a contribution by harmonizing its entry policies with the US. Resources are limited and becoming even more so as we descend ever deeper into debt.
If he had a massive majority in the parliament, he could achieve real reform...again, political leadership matters!
And how do all those Leftists get into parliament? Are you intimating that they don't represent the will of most Canadians?
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.
Yes, Argentina is an ally and friend. The Monroe Doctrine had nothing to do with our actions re the Falklands. What was Canada asked to do and what did it volunteer to do? You obviously didn't know the answer to my question and just make up an answer.
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.
Canada owes most of its prosperity to the US. We buy 85% of Canada's exports. Most of the population lives within 100 miles of the US border. And we have provided the security umbrella for it to prosper. And now that socialized medicine is in place, we make health care available to Canadians on a timely basis.
I would prefer they did, but I understand why they don't as I've already explained.
Your explanation doesn't pass muster. On the one hand you extoll how much of ally and friend Canada is, but then you attribute their failure to pull their own weight on defense to crass, calculating reasons, i.e., why do it when the US taxpayer can pick up the tab. With friends like that, who needs enemies?
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.
France pulled out of the military part of NATO a long time ago and is only recently indicating that they would like to join back in. Compared to Canada, Germany is far from a "deadbeat." Germany has 250,000 active duty personnel and spends 1.5% of its GDP on defense compared to Canada's 1.1%.
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.
Canada views Iraq as an American colonial war. I gather you concur with that judgment calling it an "adventure." Iraq is part of the WOT. AQ, the same folks who attacked us on 9/11," called in the central front in their war against us. They were in Iraq before we got there. And Iraq harbored terrorists, invaded two of its neighbors, and used WMD against the Iranians and their own people, the Kurds. Iraq also violated 16 UN resoultions and were firing at US and UK aircraft on almost a daily basis as we tried to enforce the no-fly zones. I won't go into Saddam's mass murders or his skimming of the Oil for Food money that involved the French and Russians among others. Some adventure.
Politics and a total lack of fear..
As I said, with friends like this who needs enemies?
That was not my point, that's your point, and you no full well from discussions on this thread that Canadian officers were serving alonside our troops in the theatre of operations, you just won't admit it.
"Indefensible from whom?"
NATO is about to accept as new members Croatia and Albania. Now expanding into the Balkans should be alarm bells for even the most casual observer of history, but extending it to dirt-poor, Muslim-majority Albania in the Balkans is beyond foolish. Add to this, designs of expanding it to places like Georgia, which is completely indefensible, and you have the makings of a U.N.-style alliance - one in name only, that can only get the U.S. embroiled in costly unwinnable foreign wars.
"Bilateral arrangments are not as strong as multilateral ones for many reasons."
I completely disagree. I think a U.S./U.K. bilateral alliance would be very strong.
"There is a reason NATO was created and not having the US enter into bilateral agreements throughout Europe. The framework exists, so why not build on it?
Yes, it was called Soviet invasion, but Germany and France aren't concerned about it. Personally, I really don't see Russia invading Europe anytime soon, but the best defense is a strong Europe, not one fat and lazy and looking to the U.S. an ocean away. You want to keep Russia in it's place? Get the Germans to rebuild their military.
"We need better security on both borders. And Canada can make a contribution by harmonizing its entry policies with the US. Resources are limited and becoming even more so as we descend ever deeper into debt."
Fine, fine.
"And how do all those Leftists get into parliament? Are you intimating that they don't represent the will of most Canadians?"
Look who's running the U.S. at the moment...
"Yes, Argentina is an ally and friend."
Ah...okay...guess I now know how to characterize your views: totally irrational. Argentina is an ally and friend but Canada should be endlessly reproached. Nonsense.
"The Monroe Doctrine had nothing to do with our actions re the Falklands. What was Canada asked to do and what did it volunteer to do? You obviously didn't know the answer to my question and just make up an answer."
It had plenty to do with our inaction, as did Cold War considerations, as I noted. Oh, was my answer wrong?? No, didn't think so.
"Canada owes most of its prosperity to the US. We buy 85% of Canada's exports. Most of the population lives within 100 miles of the US border. And we have provided the security umbrella for it to prosper. And now that socialized medicine is in place, we make health care available to Canadians on a timely basis."
Non sequitor.
"Your explanation doesn't pass muster. On the one hand you extoll how much of ally and friend Canada is, but then you attribute their failure to pull their own weight on defense to crass, calculating reasons, i.e., why do it when the US taxpayer can pick up the tab. With friends like that, who needs enemies?"
No, I never said they don't pull their weight, you did. I said they do more good given their modest military than much more powerful members of our 'alliance,' and it's plain to see why they of all countries don't spend unnecessarily on defense. That you can't seem to understand that is inexplicable.
"France pulled out of the military part of NATO a long time ago and is only recently indicating that they would like to join back in. Compared to Canada, Germany is far from a "deadbeat." Germany has 250,000 active duty personnel and spends 1.5% of its GDP on defense compared to Canada's 1.1%."
Nonsense. Total nonsense. You really are living in a fantasy world.
"Canada views Iraq as an American colonial war."
No, it was argument by analogy...again, something beyond your ability to assimilate.
"I gather you concur with that judgment calling it an "adventure." Iraq is part of the WOT. AQ, the same folks who attacked us on 9/11," called in the central front in their war against us. They were in Iraq before we got there. And Iraq harbored terrorists, invaded two of its neighbors, and used WMD against the Iranians and their own people, the Kurds. Iraq also violated 16 UN resoultions and were firing at US and UK aircraft on almost a daily basis as we tried to enforce the no-fly zones. I won't go into Saddam's mass murders or his skimming of the Oil for Food money that involved the French and Russians among others. Some adventure."
Yes, well as a I said, I think rational people can come to different judgments on the wisdom, utility and the timeliness of the need to invade Iraq, and no, I personally supported the invasion.
"As I said, with friends like this who needs enemies?"
Canada now is a functional enemy in your eyes. Unreal. Well, at least we've got Germany and Argentina according to you...what a complete joke. I'm done with this fantasy discussion.