Politics

[Hogpatrol]

I say let everyone of those countries tend for themselves but we all know they aren't capable.

Yep, we're like drug dealers only we sell influence, arms and manpower. Unfortunately, the U.S. economy cannot survive without the military industrial complex. Eventually we'll end up like the Soviet Union who thought they could do the same thing as us and fell apart trying.

 

[Wheels]

Wheels, that's not a political strategy. Zero. It's Trump's campaign promise to bring the troops home.But you know that much better than me.

Yes, bringing home soldiers from Syria was a campaign promise by Trump. Building a coalition to come together with a common goal is certainly a strategy. Having two of the three countries that are replacing American's be from the region is also a strategy. Empowering others to be involved in regional problems is something Trump has done a good job with. ie: South Korea dealing with North Korea, the entire spectrum of geopolitics trump has brought to bear in confronting China.

Above all as a protecting power for the Kurds who do the dirty work.
The Kurds need the protection of America, because besides Russia they are the only countries Erdogan has respect for. He destroys one Kurdish village after another in Turkey. The Kurds are a much bigger problem for Erdogan than the IS.He's been buying oil from them for years without a guilty conscience.
If I translate you correctly you think that Gulf states troops should go to Turkey.
That is unthinkable.
.

Foxi, your English is great. I admire you for coming on an English website and participating at the level you do, in a secondary language. I wish I could do the same in German but unfortunately that will never happen. When it comes to my talking about the Kurds, there has been something lost in the translation. My posts have nothing to do with the Kurds inside the border of Turkey.

The Sykes Picot Agreement and the Treaty of Sevres were not kind to the Kurds. As with many peoples in Africa and Asia, the Kurds have been split and divided by imaginary lines drawn by Europeans. While I don't know specifics of what France, KSA and UAE will be doing in Syria, it seems logical that they will be fighting any escalations of ISIS along with providing help to SDF and the Kurds in Syria. Basically replacing American actions in Syria.

As far as Nato's defence budget is concerned, he is right. Germany is (still) away from the promised 2%.
But what is totally forgotten : we had/have a reunification to stem .
17 million people had to go from communism ordered to the western level .Wages ,salaries, pensions ,employment, any other country in Europe would have gone broke with it.

I understand the difficulties of Germany's reunification. But that has nothing to do with the NATO agreement. If I went to you and borrowed $1m with an agreement to pay you back. Then had cousins with a difficult time move in with me, and I took care of them. Then told you I couldn't pay you back since I was taking care of my cousins. That wouldn't matter to you since my cousins have nothing to do with our agreement. You would still want me to pay you what I agreed to pay you and I would be obligated to pay what I had agreed. The same applies to NATO.

Oh yes, Angela Merkel may be many things, but a stasi officer, this is fake news.

Someone else might have stated that Merkel was a member of the stasi, but it wasn't me. That doesn't mean that I agree with all the things that Merkel has done. Freely inviting in a million people that will not assimilate or work and that have a completely different set of morals may have a detrimental affect on Germany. Wonder what warrior kings like Charles Martel and John Sobieski would think of Merkel's decision and the current state of Europe.

 

[Hank2211]

Let me start by saying there is no doubt to me, as a Canadian, that Canada does not spend what it should for its own defence.

The question which needs to be asked, though, is to what extent does the US benefit by its defence of those countries who are not paying their "fair share." Because if the US does benefit, directly or indirectly, there is a motive on their part to keep the game going, thus enabling the very people they are criticizing.

One obvious direct benefit is the sale of military hardware to foreign countries, which helps the US both directly (employment, taxes, etc) and by heaping with a trade balance of payments. Allies tend to buy military hardware from allies, and this is a pretty competitive market.

The other advantage (which might have been greater at one time than it is currently) is that helping to defend allies avoids having battles brought to your borders. If, for example, Canada were to decide that its future lay more with Russia than with the US - not completely far fetched since socialists like our Prime Minister and the Russians have more in common than Trudeau and Trump - would the US think that was a good idea, a bad idea, or would they be neutral about it? If the US thought that was a bad idea (which I think is likely), is there an amount of money the US would spend to avoid that possibility? And if so, what would that amount be? Note that this amount, which could be characterized as the US helping to defend Canada, would in fact be an amount spent by the US in pursuit of its own interests, even if it did have the effect of helping to defend Canada. The result of this is that the US would likely spend the same regardless of what Canada spent, since keeping friends as friends would, in this scenario, be in your own best interests, even if you paid no mind to the interests of those friends.

In other words, these issues are more complicated than a simple mathematical exercise would lead you to believe.

Let me end by saying there is no doubt to me, as a Canadian, that Canada does not spend what it should for its own defence.

 

[Rick Cox]

Dont get me wrong.. I completely agree that very few other NATO countries even attempt to pull their share of the weight or meet their agreements..

But where do the 44 and 9 numbers come from?

Every resource I have looked at estimates Germany to have somewhere between 250-350 main battle tanks in their full time component, and another 100+ in their reserves...

Wikipedia lists German battle tanks at 250.

 

[Rick Cox]

Let me start by saying there is no doubt to me, as a Canadian, that Canada does not spend what it should for its own defence.

The question which needs to be asked, though, is to what extent does the US benefit by its defence of those countries who are not paying their "fair share." Because if the US does benefit, directly or indirectly, there is a motive on their part to keep the game going, thus enabling the very people they are criticizing.

One obvious direct benefit is the sale of military hardware to foreign countries, which helps the US both directly (employment, taxes, etc) and by heaping with a trade balance of payments. Allies tend to buy military hardware from allies, and this is a pretty competitive market.

The other advantage (which might have been greater at one time than it is currently) is that helping to defend allies avoids having battles brought to your borders. If, for example, Canada were to decide that its future lay more with Russia than with the US - not completely far fetched since socialists like our Prime Minister and the Russians have more in common than Trudeau and Trump - would the US think that was a good idea, a bad idea, or would they be neutral about it? If the US thought that was a bad idea (which I think is likely), is there an amount of money the US would spend to avoid that possibility? And if so, what would that amount be? Note that this amount, which could be characterized as the US helping to defend Canada, would in fact be an amount spent by the US in pursuit of its own interests, even if it did have the effect of helping to defend Canada. The result of this is that the US would likely spend the same regardless of what Canada spent, since keeping friends as friends would, in this scenario, be in your own best interests, even if you paid no mind to the interests of those friends.

In other words, these issues are more complicated than a simple mathematical exercise would lead you to believe.

Let me end by saying there is no doubt to me, as a Canadian, that Canada does not spend what it should for its own defence.

Yeah I agree that Canada does not invest what it should for 'defence'. But how can we? We have to give away billions on whims supporting third world initiatives. That drama teacher has got to go.

 

[Rick Cox]

The only issue with this assumption is NATO being abolished. The US will never pull out and the Euro countries would never let it happen. They will quietly increase military spending and wait Trump out, the next President will be "conventional" (spineless) and let the Euros go back to pre-Trump spending levels on NATO. And we will spend Trillions over the next 70 years defending Europe..........

I don't think the US has seventy years. It's done. Trump is just a symptom.

 

[Foxi]

Yeah I agree that Canada does not invest what it should for 'defence'. But how can we? We have to give away billions on whims supporting third world initiatives. That drama teacher has got to go.

Whether this should not be seen today as an act of defence,partly ?
Before everyone comes to us ?
These costs would be even greater and the problems.

And with the demands from the USA for a "fair share" of the European NATO countries one has to ask - share in what? If the USA fulfils its alliance obligations in the Far East and wants to play its role as an "orderly power" in the Middle East, how much of that should Europeans bear? In Europe and at its borders, threats do not arise from a lack of military resources, but rather from the disintegration of states and unresolved internal conflicts that cannot be stopped by military means. The increase in arms expenditure that has been called for is perhaps the wrong way to go.
The solution to the (migration) problems of this world certainly does not lie in the budget of the military budget.
Just my 2 cents.
Foxi

 

[Dragan N.]

Let me start by saying there is no doubt to me, as a Canadian, that Canada does not spend what it should for its own defence.

The question which needs to be asked, though, is to what extent does the US benefit by its defence of those countries who are not paying their "fair share." Because if the US does benefit, directly or indirectly, there is a motive on their part to keep the game going, thus enabling the very people they are criticizing.

One obvious direct benefit is the sale of military hardware to foreign countries, which helps the US both directly (employment, taxes, etc) and by heaping with a trade balance of payments. Allies tend to buy military hardware from allies, and this is a pretty competitive market.

The other advantage (which might have been greater at one time than it is currently) is that helping to defend allies avoids having battles brought to your borders. If, for example, Canada were to decide that its future lay more with Russia than with the US - not completely far fetched since socialists like our Prime Minister and the Russians have more in common than Trudeau and Trump - would the US think that was a good idea, a bad idea, or would they be neutral about it? If the US thought that was a bad idea (which I think is likely), is there an amount of money the US would spend to avoid that possibility? And if so, what would that amount be? Note that this amount, which could be characterized as the US helping to defend Canada, would in fact be an amount spent by the US in pursuit of its own interests, even if it did have the effect of helping to defend Canada. The result of this is that the US would likely spend the same regardless of what Canada spent, since keeping friends as friends would, in this scenario, be in your own best interests, even if you paid no mind to the interests of those friends.

In other words, these issues are more complicated than a simple mathematical exercise would lead you to believe.

Let me end by saying there is no doubt to me, as a Canadian, that Canada does not spend what it should for its own defence.

I wouldn't exactly call Justin Trudeau a socialist. His father Pierre Trudeau certainly had extremely strong socialist leanings and was probably the closest thing Canada had to a socialist prime minister- during the height of the cold war he spent quite a bit of time in the eastern bloc. Justin also doesn't seem to have a particularly good relationship with Putin- you could make a stronger argument that Trump and Putin have more in common than Trudeau Jr. and Putin. JT's foreign political buddies seem to be Obama and Macron... He also had a high opinion of Castro but this seems more due to the personal relationship with his father and Castro- they're family friends of sorts- than shared ideological beliefs.

But anyways I digress, I certainly agree with you that Canada does not spend what it should on its defence but there's no real reason to do so due to its geographic position. Given the huge border that Canada shares with the States, its really the only country Canada even borders, its highly unlikely that any country would ever invade it. Even if Canada were not a NATO member it would still be in American self interests to keep Canada friendly because of the huge border and vice versa its in Canada's interest to keep on America's good side due to piggy backing of the American military might- simply by being its biggest neighbor.

 

[Hank2211]

I wouldn't exactly call Justin Trudeau a socialist. His father Pierre Trudeau certainly had extremely strong socialist leanings and was probably the closest thing Canada had to a socialist prime minister- during the height of the cold war he spent quite a bit of time in the eastern bloc. Justin also doesn't seem to have a particularly good relationship with Putin- you could make a stronger argument that Trump and Putin have more in common than Trudeau Jr. and Putin. JT's foreign political buddies seem to be Obama and Macron... He also had a high opinion of Castro but this seems more due to the personal relationship with his father and Castro- they're family friends of sorts- than shared ideological beliefs.

But anyways I digress, I certainly agree with you that Canada does not spend what it should on its defence but there's no real reason to do so due to its geographic position. Given the huge border that Canada shares with the States, its really the only country Canada even borders, its highly unlikely that any country would ever invade it. Even if Canada were not a NATO member it would still be in American self interests to keep Canada friendly because of the huge border and vice versa its in Canada's interest to keep on America's good side due to piggy backing of the American military might- simply by being its biggest neighbor.

I think anyone who believes that government can solve all your problems is a socialist. I also think that anyone who believes that government spending is the solution to all of society's ills is a socialist. By both definitions, Trudeau is a socialist. In fact, I think you have already seen - and will see even more before the upcoming election - that he will move farther left in order to garner votes from the (failing) NDP.

But not a big deal. We seem to agree where it matters. I'm not sure if Canada reduced its military spending that the US would decline to defend it from invasion. It may end up owing Canada after such a defence, which is the main reason Canada why should maintain a reasonable ability to defend itself. That was my main point - that an American demand that countries spend more to "defend themselves" doesn't mean that it isn't in America's self-interest to defend those countries as well, in some cases. Certainly, if tanks rolled into the Baltics, not much would change in the US, but if tanks rolled into Canada or much of western Europe . . .

Anyway, I think we all agree that countries that pretend to sovereignty should have at least a basic ability to defend themselves, or they might think about not being countries any more. Having said that, it's of course unrealistic (and no one has suggested this) that every country should be able to defend itself from every other country (ICBMs anyone?).

 

[PHOENIX PHIL]

I think anyone who believes that government can solve all your problems is a socialist. I also think that anyone who believes that government spending is the solution to all of society's ills is a socialist. By both definitions, Trudeau is a socialist. In fact, I think you have already seen - and will see even more before the upcoming election - that he will move farther left in order to garner votes from the (failing) NDP.

But not a big deal. We seem to agree where it matters. I'm not sure if Canada reduced its military spending that the US would decline to defend it from invasion. It may end up owing Canada after such a defence, which is the main reason Canada why should maintain a reasonable ability to defend itself. That was my main point - that an American demand that countries spend more to "defend themselves" doesn't mean that it isn't in America's self-interest to defend those countries as well, in some cases. Certainly, if tanks rolled into the Baltics, not much would change in the US, but if tanks rolled into Canada or much of western Europe . . .

Anyway, I think we all agree that countries that pretend to sovereignty should have at least a basic ability to defend themselves, or they might think about not being countries any more. Having said that, it's of course unrealistic (and no one has suggested this) that every country should be able to defend itself from every other country (ICBMs anyone?).

I still can’t see how that translates to why the USA should devote such a large portion of its overall budget or GDP to defending itself as well as other countries if those governments aren’t willing to do the same.

The tanks rolling into Canada represent at least as great a threat to Canadians as they do to your southern neighbors don’t they?

 

[Hank2211]

Of course foreign tanks rolling into Canada are a problem for Canada. Neither I nor anyone else on this thread that I can find has said anything different. What we've said, and what you've also said, is that they also pose a threat to our "southern neighbours." Since these are a threat to America as well, then by spending money on North American defence, America is also spending it on its own defence. Canada is not a charity case which you are defending out of the goodnesses of your hearts. You are doing so in part because it's spending on your own defence as well. So even if Canada chose to spend nothing on its own defence, you would likely still spend some of your money to defend it. The same might not be said about, for example, the Ukraine.

I am not suggesting that Canada should do this. Look at my earlier remarks. I said not once, but twice in my earlier post, that I think Canada should spend more. But frankly, there is nothing Canada can do to protect itself against nuclear war (since, by choice, we don't have a nuclear capability), or against the entire Russian armed forces.

I'm not sure if I'm not getting my point across, or if some are intentionally not getting it. So I will try again. Not all of the money which the US spends on the defence of other countries is spent for the purpose of defending those other countries. To a greater or lesser extent, that money is spent on the defence of the US. In other words, if you decided to do nothing that would only help foreign countries (that is, no more Mr. Nice Guy), you would likely still spend a lot of money defending those countries for your own benefit.

And AGAIN, that is not an excuse for countries not carrying their own weight in terms of defence spending. It is only an argument that not all the spending the US complains about is for the sole benefit of foreign countries, even if that is one of the principle effects of that spending.

 

[PHOENIX PHIL]

Of course foreign tanks rolling into Canada are a problem for Canada. Neither I nor anyone else on this thread that I can find has said anything different. What we've said, and what you've also said, is that they also pose a threat to our "southern neighbours." Since these are a threat to America as well, then by spending money on North American defence, America is also spending it on its own defence. Canada is not a charity case which you are defending out of the goodnesses of your hearts. You are doing so in part because it's spending on your own defence as well. So even if Canada chose to spend nothing on its own defence, you would likely still spend some of your money to defend it. The same might not be said about, for example, the Ukraine.

I am not suggesting that Canada should do this. Look at my earlier remarks. I said not once, but twice in my earlier post, that I think Canada should spend more. But frankly, there is nothing Canada can do to protect itself against nuclear war (since, by choice, we don't have a nuclear capability), or against the entire Russian armed forces.

I'm not sure if I'm not getting my point across, or if some are intentionally not getting it. So I will try again. Not all of the money which the US spends on the defence of other countries is spent for the purpose of defending those other countries. To a greater or lesser extent, that money is spent on the defence of the US. In other words, if you decided to do nothing that would only help foreign countries (that is, no more Mr. Nice Guy), you would likely still spend a lot of money defending those countries for your own benefit.

And AGAIN, that is not an excuse for countries not carrying their own weight in terms of defence spending. It is only an argument that not all the spending the US complains about is for the sole benefit of foreign countries, even if that is one of the principle effects of that spending.

That’s fair. My point of view is the USA needs to spend a lot less on defense. If those we are at least partially protecting protest but who are let’s say not paying their “fair share”....while spending so much more on their social programs.....quite frankly I don’t want to hear it. They’re IMO protecting their social programs at the expense of the US taxpayer.

 

[WAB]

There's an old saying "When elephants roll over, mice get squashed." Canada is the mouse caught between the US and Chinese elephants. There's very little Canada can do, and anything it can do might just put more Canadians in China at risk.

Personally, I believe Trudeau should have done what others have done before hi - once he got word that Ms. Meng would be arrested once she set foot in Canada, he should have had the Foreign Affairs people whisper that to the Chinese ambassador. If she had then stayed away, no harm done, and the US could still try to get her on their won. If she had come to Canada anyway, the Chinese couldn't blame us.

But our Prime Minister, who gives Boy Scouts a bad name, just decided to do nothing, something he's exceptionally gifted at.

That, disrespecting and mistreating the Canadian military, and just generally being a complete horses ass. I thought his father was the low water mark but this guy takes the cake.

 

[Hogpatrol]

I don't think the US has seventy years. It's done. Trump is just a symptom.

If we can make it through Obama, we make it through anyone. We've been through wars, a civil war, depressions, recession, corruption at the highest and lowest levels. The one calamity we haven't experienced is hyper-inflation and it's coming. That will be the ultimate test of the republic and those that are easily offended or living off the dole.

 

[Hank2211]

If we can make it through Obama, we make it through anyone. We've been through wars, a civil war, depressions, recession, corruption at the highest and lowest levels. The one calamity we haven't experienced is hyper-inflation and it's coming. That will be the ultimate test of the republic and those that are easily offended or living off the dole.

Having been in Zimbabwe when they were going through hyper-inflation, I can only hope you're wrong.

 

[Hogpatrol]

Having been in Zimbabwe when they were going through hyper-inflation, I can only hope you're wrong.

For every debtor nation, a day of reckoning arrives.

 

[Hogpatrol]

 

[Bushpig4Ever]

 

[Hogpatrol]

 

[thriller]

Well people that vote for Trump may be losers in some people's eyes but at least they aren't communists and want work for a living so they aren't half bad in my opinion.