I think you have a reading comprehension problem. You continue to toss in totally irrelevant associations. I never said that the US assistance in the Falkland War saved the day. I provided you with a link to a Time article that debunked that assertion that our assistance was the reason why the Brits were victorious. And you can't even provide any resopnse as to what Canada did to assist a fellow member of the Commonwealth. And then you are grasping at straws trying to show some sort of Canadian participation in Iraq. Nonsense.
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
Why would the Leftist Canadian government want this involvement to be covert or deniable? And I guess there were casualties as well? BS.
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?
You were the one who suggested that a beefed up Germany would be a way to keep Russia "in its place." And you are against the expansion of NATO and want to dismantle it by replacing it with a bunch of bilateral defense agreements. I served 8 years as a naval officer including two years assigned to a NATO comnmand. You are talking thru your hat. With Europe devoting less and less funds to defense, it is far better they pool their resources and take on specific roles to coordinate the defense of Europe. If we didn't have NATO, we would have to invent something like it. NATO's mission will have to change if Europe wants to remain relevant globally.
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.
There are two issues involved here. If defensibility is the criterion for deciding who can and cannot join, how defensible are the Baltic countries? If Gerogia and Ukraine have stable governments and meet the various criteria that NATO imposes on prospective members, then they should join. Do you believe that Russia would risk war with NATO over Georgia or Latvia? Russia should not be allowed to intimidate NATO members. They are trying to discourage the placement of our anti-missile defense systems in Poland and the Czech Republic.
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.
I spent 28 years as a Foreign Service Officer. I have never heard anyone in the State Department refer to the Monroe Doctrine as the basis for our current foreign policy. Where do you come up with this stuff?
I'll bet you have lots of neat passport stamps, Germanophile.
Now that's original.
1. You started by claiming that Canada was a bad ally because they didn’t join us in combat in Iraq or in Vietnam. I countered your assertion, by giving you the comparison that the U.S. didn’t assist the UK in the Suez Crisis or the Falklands despite the fact that the U.S. and U.K. are NATO allies, and I asked you if that made us lousy allies to the British by extension of the same logic.
2.You then countered by asserting that we did help Britain in the Falklands, stating: “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…”
3. Since your offer of proof of U.S. assistance to Britain in the Falklands War was strategic (and very modest) in nature, rather than in the form of combat troops, I submitted to you the argument that your earlier assertion was therefore baseless, and that: “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"…and continued in a later post, “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” You now claim to have submitted that article for the purposes of debunking your earlier assertion that the U.S. provided material assistance to the UK in the Falklands, “I provided you with a link to a Time article that debunked that assertion that our assistance was the reason why the Brits were victorious.” Proving my original point once again. Then you claimed that I might have a reading comprehension problem for not following you. WTF??
You go on… “And you can't even provide any resopnse as to what Canada did to assist a fellow member of the Commonwealth. And then you are grasping at straws trying to show some sort of Canadian participation in Iraq.”Again, it follows from the earlier discussion we had about you seeming to only value ‘combat’ assistance. In your words, “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.” I simply noted that if the U.S.A.’s doing nothing but lending strategic aid to Britain in the Falklands counted in your mind as the actions of an ally, then Canadians actually serving in the theatre of operations in Iraq would certainly count as well. But then, who knows what point you’re trying to prove vis-à-vis the Falklands anymore, and since you count Argentina as a ‘friend and ally’ and think Germany’s contributions to NATO to be far greater than Canada’s…then who knows what to make of it.
“Why would the Leftist Canadian government want this involvement to be covert or deniable?
Ahh…is that a real question? Can you think of why a liberal prime minister whose re-election depends upon Canada staying out of the war would want to downplay the active role of Canadian forces? Can you think of a reason why Canada, who committed itself not to go to war unless the Security Council provided a new authorization would want to make it look as though it was appearing not to reverse course? Again however, the only reason I bring up Canada’s non-participation-participation, was to compare their strategic support of us, to our strategic support of the UK in the Falklands as a means of disproving your notion that only actual combat assistance counts in adjudging the steadfastness of an ally. Not to assert that Canada has played some great covert role in Iraq.
”And I guess there were casualties as well? BS.”Ah…no, I don’t think anyone claimed that. Certainly not me. Reading comprehension!!
Moving along...
“You were the one who suggested that a beefed up Germany would be a way to keep Russia "in its place." And you are against the expansion of NATO and want to dismantle it by replacing it with a bunch of bilateral defense agreements.
True and true. I guess you’re not following my point. I don’t think Russia is much of a threat to western Europe, er go, NATO has outlived its usefulness. Since the alternative, a grand Russian invasion of Europe is in my mind a fantasy, my point about a beefed up Germany is really hyperbole. In my mind, if I don’t think Russia is a threat, and Germany as evidenced by the size of their military isn’t concerned…what the hell do we need NATO for? As for bilateral agreements, I opt for them as a way of cutting out the deadwood and lessening the ‘entangling alliances’ that can only serve to pull the U.S. into unnecessary wars. Yes, I would rather just have an alliance with the U.K. for instance, than sit around arguing with the French and Germans and begging the Belgians for a plane or whatnot so we can take a ‘NATO’ action together. In case you didn’t realize it, all of our NATO allies on the continent just told us to ‘stuff it’ when it comes to additional combat troops for NATO action in Afghanistan. Moreover, the French and Germans won't allow their soldiers to be in combat roles there!! Though those miserable ‘do-nothing’ Canadians are there!
“I served 8 years as a naval officer including two years assigned to a NATO comnmand. You are talking thru your hat.”
Thanks for your service, but I don’t think I am.
”With Europe devoting less and less funds to defense, it is far better they pool their resources and take on specific roles to coordinate the defense of Europe. If we didn't have NATO, we would have to invent something like it. NATO's mission will have to change if Europe wants to remain relevant globally.”
This is really the kicker for me…how can you make this argument while lambasting Canada?????????UNBELIEVABLE!
According to you, Canada doesn’t pull it’s own weight in NATO, even though Canadians are fighting in Afghanistan at the moment in a NATO action that NATO-member Germany refuses to send combat troops to. Same with France. Canada’s military is a ‘joke’ and they are ‘freeloaders’ because they don’t spend enough money in your mind on defense, but it’s okay for Germany and France, with vastly larger populations and GDPs to depend on the U.S. to protect them so that they can devote ‘less and less funds to defense’ and ‘pool their resources and take on specific roles to coordinate the defense of Europe.’
AHAHAHAHAHA! Oh, the hypocrisy.
Then you go on, “If we didn't have NATO, we would have to invent something like it. NATO's mission will have to change if Europe wants to remain relevant globally.”
So, by your logic, in order to defend the Europeans, who won't defend themselves, and who won’t send combat troops to help us in Afghanistan despite being NATO allies, we would have to invent NATO if it didn’t exist. But, by the same token, we should tell the Canadians, who are currently fighting with us in Afghanistan to stuff it because they don’t pull their own weight and have done little to help us in terms of combat since Korea. Do you realize how crazy your positions are? You just can’t get enough of the deadbeat Germans, who won’t lift a finger for us, but the Canadians, oh man, endless enmity for them despite currently being in combat with us in Afghanistan.
On to an expanded NATO… “There are two issues involved here. If defensibility is the criterion for deciding who can and cannot join, how defensible are the Baltic countries?From who, Russia? Again, I don’t think the threat of Russian ground invasion is real, but if it were, they would not be defensible, since we aren’t going to start WW III and engage in a full-scale ground war with Russia and risk nuclear holocaust over Estonia.
If Gerogia and Ukraine have stable governments and meet the various criteria that NATO imposes on prospective members, then they should join.
No, I think NATO should not expand at all, and I would prefer that it be disbanded.
Do you believe that Russia would risk war with NATO over Georgia or Latvia?
I think Russia could swallow up these countries in a quick invasion before we could do anything about it…then we would be sitting there with no real alternatives, looking as impotent as we did when Russia invaded Georgia last year.
Russia should not be allowed to intimidate NATO members. They are trying to discourage the placement of our anti-missile defense systems in Poland and the Czech Republic.
True, but expanding the North Atlantic Treaty into the Caucuses is asking for trouble…what happened when the Soviet Union was in Cuba? We went ape-shit, and justifiably so. They feel the same way.
“I spent 28 years as a Foreign Service Officer. I have never heard anyone in the State Department refer to the Monroe Doctrine as the basis for our current foreign policy.”
This I totally believe! But again, I was arguing a narrow point about the Falklands, and the issue was much discussed at the time.
“Where do you come up with this stuff?”
James Monroe and Teddy Roosevelt.