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.
My comments were directed at your claim that Canada was one of our strongest allies. We provided the UK with whatever assistance they requested in the Falklands War. They did not ask for troops from any of their NATO allies, including Canada. You seem obsessed with the Falklands War, which you continue erronerously to compare with the situation in Iraq. They are not analogous for so many reasons.
Again however, the only reason I bring up Canada’s non-participation-participation,
What a ridiculous claim. Canada's participation in Iraq was/is non-existent. To claim otherwise is just ridiculous. Maybe there was an American officer secunded to the British Army during the Falklands War and thus, using your rationale, America participated in the war. Give me a break.
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.
Argentina was designated in 1998 by the USG as a Major non-NATO ally (MNNA), which is given to exceptionally close allies who have close strategic working relationships with American forces but are not members of NATO. While the MNNA status does not automatically include a mutual defense pact with the United States, it does confer a variety of military and financial advantages that otherwise are not obtainable by countries.
Germany does contribute more to NATO than Canada. Its military is about four times larger. It has 3,500 troops in Afghanistan [and has been there since August 2003] making it the third largest contributor. It has been part of Kosovo Force [KFOR] since 1999. KFOR has 34 countries (including all NATO members apart from Iceland and Canada) take part, with a total of around 15,500 troops. With approximately 2600 troops Germany is the largest troop contributor. Operation ACTIVE ENDEAVOUR in the Mediterranean since October 2001. At present 8 NATO nations and Ukraine take part, with a total of around 2000 troops. Germany contributes either a frigate or a submarine to the operation on a rotating basis. Germany has been hosting training programs for Iraqi security and logistic forces. And Germany pays a much larger share of NATO's budget.
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?
This is prima facie evidence that the majority of Canadians do not support the US "adventure [your description]" in Iraq.
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?
Germany's military is four times the size of Canada's and it has conscription. Since the fall of the Wall, the reunification of Germany, and the expansion of NATO, Germany is no longer on the frontlines vis-a-vis Russia. Four countries like Poland, other former Warsaw Pact countries, and the Baltic states, NATO is the security blanket they need to protect them from Russian revanchism. One only need to read some history books to understand why these fears exist. And anyone who has ever travelled or lived in these countries knows how important the admission to NATO is. And NATO derives its credence and strength from one source and one source only, the USA.
Eliminating NATO at this juncture of history would have far reaching consequences substantively and psychologically. It would be a disaster.
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.’
There you go with your liberal tactics, change the subject and attack. I am just as critical of Germany and France as I am of Canada when it comes to defense spending and the lack of support. But we are discussing Canada and its defense policies and expenditures. You sound like the teenage complaining to his parents about all the other kids are doing it. And it really gets tiresome to hear the whinning about Canadians fighting in Afghanstian and how unfair it is that they are taking disproportionate casualties. As an American, I just don't think you must be congratulated on doing one's duty. Yes the 2500 troops are welcomed and the 116 deaths deserve respect and praise, but Americans have done so much more in its contributions of blood and treasure for far longer.
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.
If that happened NATO would cease to exist. It would no longer have any credibility externally or among its members. Article 5 would be a joke. The Soviet Union believed that NATO was a credible alliance. Are you saying that Russia would attack and occupy a NATO member without fear of military retaliation? I hope that is not the case because it would result in a war.
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.
This is the kind of moral equivalency that the Leftists use. We went through this when stationing missiles in Turkey. NATO poses no offensive military threat to Russia. We are not pounding our shoe on the desk threatening to bury Russia. NATO is a collection of democracies. If Russia harbors aggressive intentions, then it demonstrates the need for NATO. FYI: Russia has been given observer status on NATO operations.
This I totally believe! But again, I was arguing a narrow point about the Falklands, and the issue was much discussed at the time.
You can believe what you want. Reality is far different. The Monroe Doctrine has not been part of our foreign policy for a long, long time. And it was certainly not cited or used during the Falklands War to prevent the UK from acting in its own self-interest or to prevent our participation.