[kabar]

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.

No, it was your point that Canadians were involved in Iraq. Being in the region could be on a ship or in CENTCOM Forward HDQTRS. The point is were any of them ever in harm's way? Highly doubtful especially given Canada's political opposition to being involved in Iraq. Based on personal experience, I seriously doubt that DOD would ever put a Canadian officer in that position given the political ramifications.

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.

You still have not answered my question. What is the external threat to NATO? If it is Russia, then I see no need to disband it. I agree we should wait on Georgia, not because it is "indefensible," but because of the unstable political situation and the fact that Russian troops have been stationed in Georgia for about the last 15 years.

I completely disagree. I think a U.S./U.K. bilateral alliance would be very strong.

Stronger than NATO? What do we do about Germany, France, Spain, Italy, Greece, Turkey, etc.? How does a series of bilateral defense agreements strengthen our defensive posture compared to our existing arrangments under NATO?

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.

I don't understand the first statement. The Soviet Union no longer exists nor does East Germany and the Warsaw Pact. NATO was set up to counter a Soviet invasion and the spread of communism in post war Western Europe, which had suffered tremendous damage. NATO provided the security umbrella to allow Western Europe to recover.

Without the US, even a return to a half a million man German military will not be enough to "keep Russia in its place." Russia has nuclear weapons. Germany does not. We have never renounced a first use of nuclear weapons, tactical or otherwise, to defend Europe. That will keep Russia in its place. And the Russians no longer have the conventional forces to make a run thru the Fulda Gap, which is now completely within Germany. And Poland is now part of NATO along with the Czech Republic, Slovakia, Hugary, Bulgaria, Romania, Latvia, Lithuania, and Estonia.

Look who's running the U.S. at the moment...

If the current immigration policies remain in place, the changing demographics will make the Dems the permanent majority party and the US a third world country. By 2023 half of the children 18 and under will be minorities and by 2042 half of the country will be minorities, as defined by the USG. Today, one in 8 residents of this country is foreign born [the highest in more than 80 years] compared to one in 21 in 1970. Within in a decade it will be one in 7 the highest in our history and by 2050 it will be one in five foreign born. 87% of the 1.2 million LEGAL immigrants who enter this country annually are minorities. Immigrants and minorities vote Dem.

It had plenty to do with our inaction,

You are making a baseless assertion. And the fact is we provided the UK with more assistance than we did Argentina. Nor did we try to prevent the UK from retaking the Falklands. Reagan and Thatcher were on the same wavelength.

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.

LOL. And who decides what is "unnecessary?" A bunch of freeloaders including Canada.

Nonsense. Total nonsense. You really are living in a fantasy world.

Sorry, but you are entitled to your own opinion, but not your own facts. Germany contributes more to NATO and to the US in terms of defense than Canada, whether you use the metric of miltary bases, troops, money, etc.

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.

Canada a "functional enemy?" LOL. You should change your moniker to canadianophile. You are the one living in a fantasy world. I lived in Berlin for four years [1983-87] before the Wall came down and in Poland for two years during the days of martial law and Solidarnosc. I also served a couple of years in Naples at a NATO base while in the USN, three years in Athens, and two years in Helsinki.

[americanophile]

This is such a wast of time. You're arguing in circles. You don't even realize the logical inconsistency of what you're arguing. You think Canada is a lousy ally because it didn't support its NATO ally, the USA, in combat missions in Iraq, but credit us with saving the day in the Falklands War by not committing combat troops to our NATO ally, Britain. When I point out that Canadians were actually serving in the Iraq thearte of operations through NATO officer exchange programs, you claim that it is insufficient assistance because they weren't in combat roles, but still trumpet the non-combat U.S. Falklands example. Whatever.

With regard to your statement, "Being in the region could be on a ship or in CENTCOM Forward HDQTRS. The point is were any of them ever in harm's way? Highly doubtful especially given Canada's political opposition to being involved in Iraq. Based on personal experience, I seriously doubt that DOD would ever put a Canadian officer in that position given the political ramifications."

Give me a break, countries are involved in military operations in covert or otherwise diplomaticallly deniable ways all the time. Here's a 2003 article you might be interested in however: "Lieut.-Col. Ronnie McCourt told CBC News, in an interview at command headquarters in Doha, Qatar, that some Canadians are on the front lines. "They are in combat," he said, "and there's always a risk there." Duceppe says five U.S. soldiers captured in Iraq were assigned to maintenance units. He says it's ludicrous to suggest that the Canadian soldiers in the region aren't involved."http://www.cbc.ca/news/story/2003/03/27/cdnsoldiers030327.html

"You still have not answered my question. What is the external threat to NATO? If it is Russia, then I see no need to disband it. I agree we should wait on Georgia, not because it is "indefensible," but because of the unstable political situation and the fact that Russian troops have been stationed in Georgia for about the last 15 years."

This is a curious line of departure from someone who earlier didn't want to 'change the subject' away from Canada, but I can see why you would want to now. NATO is simply outmoded, the external threat it was designed for - Soviet invasion is no longer a threat...or are you worried that Russia is going to launch a massive land invasion of nuclear-armed western Europe? Georgia by the way is completely indefensible, or do your propose the US seriously go to war with Russia in the Caucuses on Russia's southern border. Beyond fantasy.

"Stronger than NATO? What do we do about Germany, France, Spain, Italy, Greece, Turkey, etc.? How does a series of bilateral defense agreements strengthen our defensive posture compared to our existing arrangments under NATO?"

I'm chiefly concerned with defending the United States, so the fewer smaller, defenseless, countries we commit to defending, the fewer chances of us being pulled into foreign wars like in the Balkans or the Caucuses for crying out loud. If Afghanistan is a NATO mission, than bilateral U.S., British, Canadian and Australian agreements would serve just as well, since the other alliance members are serving in non-combat roles...the kind you excoritate Canada for.

"I don't understand the first statement. The Soviet Union no longer exists nor does East Germany and the Warsaw Pact. NATO was set up to counter a Soviet invasion and the spread of communism in post war Western Europe, which had suffered tremendous damage. NATO provided the security umbrella to allow Western Europe to recover."

All true.

"Without the US, even a return to a half a million man German military will not be enough to "keep Russia in its place." Russia has nuclear weapons. Germany does not."

Then Germany better getting moving if they're worried about Russia..which they're not. If Germany needs nukes, they can build and pay for them...why should we?

"We have never renounced a first use of nuclear weapons, tactical or otherwise, to defend Europe. That will keep Russia in its place. And the Russians no longer have the conventional forces to make a run thru the Fulda Gap, which is now completely within Germany. And Poland is now part of NATO along with the Czech Republic, Slovakia, Hugary, Bulgaria, Romania, Latvia, Lithuania, and Estonia."

Again, does anyone really believe the Russians are going to invade Europe NOW? NATO is pointless and its endless expansion is dangerous FOR US.

"If the current immigration policies remain in place, the changing demographics will make the Dems the permanent majority party and the US a third world country. By 2023 half of the children 18 and under will be minorities and by 2042 half of the country will be minorities, as defined by the USG. Today, one in 8 residents of this country is foreign born [the highest in more than 80 years] compared to one in 21 in 1970. Within in a decade it will be one in 7 the highest in our history and by 2050 it will be one in five foreign born. 87% of the 1.2 million LEGAL immigrants who enter this country annually are minorities. Immigrants and minorities vote Dem."

All true...but again, a non sequitur.

"You are making a baseless assertion. And the fact is we provided the UK with more assistance than we did Argentina. Nor did we try to prevent the UK from retaking the Falklands. Reagan and Thatcher were on the same wavelength"

The fact that you don't understand my point doesn't make it baseless. Could the UK have used American combat troops in the Falklands? Would such assistance not have made it much easier for them?? Of course...but we didn't...and it's because of political considerations, and those include both the Monroe Doctrine, and what an open repudiation of it would mean for Soviet and other expansion into our hemisphere. The fact that we did violate it in spirit is very different from sending troops. We were helping the U.K., but trying not to help too much, lest we blow all credibility in Latin America where we were fighting against communists.

"LOL. And who decides what is "unnecessary?" A bunch of freeloaders including Canada."

Hahaha...ya, they should spend 10% of their GDP on creating a massive military to fight the Danish in case they try to expand from Greenland.

"Sorry, but you are entitled to your own opinion, but not your own facts. Germany contributes more to NATO and to the US in terms of defense than Canada, whether you use the metric of miltary bases, troops, money, etc."

AHAHAHAHAHAHA! Nonsense. Germanophile.

"Canada a "functional enemy?" LOL. You should change your moniker to canadianophile. You are the one living in a fantasy world. I lived in Berlin for four years [1983-87] before the Wall came down and in Poland for two years during the days of martial law and Solidarnosc. I also served a couple of years in Naples at a NATO base while in the USN, three years in Athens, and two years in Helsinki."

I'll bet you have lots of neat passport stamps, Germanophile.