[llama66]

Invaded or attacked or whatever...

[herbie]

llama66 llama66:

Invaded or attacked or whatever...

Which begs the same question that existed since before I was born: WHO would do that?
No country would intentionally do that.
Attack the US and fucking miss, that's been the problem since 1949...

[llama66]

The question was “would the states support us if something happened here” and I said yes

[herbie]

Even though that might be an Abrams tank on every corner "protecting us" from another possible U-Haul attack in Toronto? Or air-dropping supplies to Fiddledog and the Contras if Jagmeet Singh got elected?

[llama66]

A bit alarmist, but I understand your point

[rickc]

Coach85 Coach85:

martin14 martin14:

Canada not spending 2% of GDP on Defense, as agreed in 2002, 2006, and 2014,
is 100% Canada's fault.

No one else.

So trying to say Trump telling us how to spend our money is just idiocy.

The 2% was a goal. Not an agreement. Not a 'treaty'.

It most certainly WAS an agreement. A treaty? No. Why would it be a treaty when NATO already is a treaty? We do not have to have a ticker tape parade with heads of state every time NATO members agree on something.
https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/nato-s ... -1.4022576
Here is a CBC article from Mar. 2017. It states that Canadian defense spending is among the lowest in NATO. It states that 2% of GDP is the target that all NATO members including Canada agreed on in 2014. The article states that NATO Secretary General Jens Stoltenberg (from Norway) threw down the gauntlet and demanded that all NATO members meet the spending levels that they had agreed upon in 2014. That was last year. Its funny that when a Norwegian asks you to belly up to the bar and pay your dues, it is a non event. No one gives a shit. Let President Trump say it and the world quits spinning. You made the commitment, honor it. You made it in 2014 long before Trump was on the scene.

Its funny how the article points out that Trudeau wants to tap dance around the issue by saying: "There are many ways of evaluating one's contribution to NATO". LOL!!! Sure!! Sounds like the old soft shoe routine to me. That would be like your boss agreeing to give you a certain percent raise and then finding out that you only got half of it. When you bring it to his attention he states: "there are many ways of being compensated. You get free parking, paid breaks, an air conditioned office with your own chair, and five vacation days per year!!!" Its all bullshit.

If you say you are going to do something, than do it. You made the commitment to NATO, not the U.S. You agreed to it long before anyone was talking about Trump, so don't use him as an excuse to weasel out of your commitment.

[martin14]

+5

[DrCaleb]

rickc rickc:

If you say you are going to do something, than do it. You made the commitment to NATO, not the U.S. You agreed to it long before anyone was talking about Trump, so don't use him as an excuse to weasel out of your commitment.

You'll also notice the 2014 agreement was to increase spending to 2% over 10 years.

It's only been 4.

[BeaverFever]

martin14 martin14:

bootlegga bootlegga:

Canada has more than lived up to its NATO commitments.

We spent tens of billions of dollars maintaining a brigade group and air wing in Europe for 40+ years. We built a first class ASW navy and worked with NATO to patrol the Atlantic throughout the Cold War, participating (and leading) SNMG1 for decades, and have also sent ships to SNMG 2 in the Mediterranean Sea. We were one of the first to show up on Cyprus to keep Greece and Turkey from going to war with each other - and then stayed there for more than 20 years.

When the US was attacked on 9/11 and invoked Article 5 of the NATO treaty, we sent one of the largest contingents to Afghanistan, including ground, air and naval assets. There we lost more soldiers per capita than anyone except the Americans. We had troops and planes in the middle east fighting ISIS, and now we've committed to keeping a battalion in Latvia to deter Russian aggression for another five years. The fact is we've participated in dozens of NATO-led missions and operations over the past 60+ years.

So what if we haven't reached some BS defence spending metric (the deadline for which is 2024 BTW) six years before the deadline?

I certainly want Canada to reach that commitment, but only an asshole can say Canada hasn't pulled its weight in NATO since it was founded in 1949.

Well thank you for that history lesson, most of which happened before you were even born,
and a time when we had better leaders.

All the story telling doesn't add up to 2%. You know, the one ALL the leaders keep using,
despite your God like wisdom, telling us all how wrong they all are.




Not since Pearson....

I guess you missed the part about the NATO deadline for 2% spending being 2024?

[BRAH]

If Canada didn't share a border with the United States it would have to spend billions on defence. Since we do share that border for decades all Governments have neglected their obligation to the Canadian military and NATO.

[llama66]

BRAH BRAH:

If Canada didn't share a border with the United States it would have to spend billions on defence. Since we do share that border for decades all Governments have neglected their obligation to the Canadian military and NATO.

Not at all an untrue statement. Look at Australia... they have about 11 million less people than us and spend 7 billion more on defense.

We do have it good. But we do need to do more.

[PublicAnimalNo9]

bootlegga bootlegga:

Frankly, I'm at the point with this line of BS where I just wish Trudeau would tell Trump, "The next time there is a 9/11, go ask Estonia to back you up, Canada is busy."

I don't think he'd pick Estonia. According to PM Dumbass, there's no such thing as the Baltics.

[herbie]

llama66 llama66:

A bit alarmist, but I understand your point

You have to admit, it's more likely than any other imagined attack scenario.

[bootlegga]

rickc rickc:

It most certainly WAS an agreement. A treaty? No. Why would it be a treaty when NATO already is a treaty? We do not have to have a ticker tape parade with heads of state every time NATO members agree on something.
https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/nato-s ... -1.4022576
Here is a CBC article from Mar. 2017. It states that Canadian defense spending is among the lowest in NATO. It states that 2% of GDP is the target that all NATO members including Canada agreed on in 2014. The article states that NATO Secretary General Jens Stoltenberg (from Norway) threw down the gauntlet and demanded that all NATO members meet the spending levels that they had agreed upon in 2014. That was last year. Its funny that when a Norwegian asks you to belly up to the bar and pay your dues, it is a non event. No one gives a shit. Let President Trump say it and the world quits spinning. You made the commitment, honor it. You made it in 2014 long before Trump was on the scene.

Its funny how the article points out that Trudeau wants to tap dance around the issue by saying: "There are many ways of evaluating one's contribution to NATO". LOL!!! Sure!! Sounds like the old soft shoe routine to me. That would be like your boss agreeing to give you a certain percent raise and then finding out that you only got half of it. When you bring it to his attention he states: "there are many ways of being compensated. You get free parking, paid breaks, an air conditioned office with your own chair, and five vacation days per year!!!" Its all bullshit.

If you say you are going to do something, than do it. You made the commitment to NATO, not the U.S. You agreed to it long before anyone was talking about Trump, so don't use him as an excuse to weasel out of your commitment.

First off, that agreement ends in 2024, so quit bitching about us missing a deadline that hasn't happened yet.

Second, it all depends on how you count defence spending. Yes, by GDP, Canada is in the bottom half. But in total defence dollars, we are sixth (table 2 below), at $20.3 Billion USD in 2017. Much ballyhooed Estonia spent $519 MILLION, while Greece spent $4.5 billion.

https://www.nato.int/nato_static_fl2014 ... 111-en.pdf

That $20.3 billion buys a lot more military hardware than Estonia or Greece, as well as the ability to deploy more often in support of NATO. That same link also shows that Canada is very close to meeting one of the goals in that agreement - 19.42% of defence spending is for equipment (goal is 20%), and as procurement for new fighters and navy ships ramp up in the coming years, we will exceed that goal.

Third, as that NATO link shows, Canadian defence spending (along with most NATO members) is on a definite upward track, from $18.1 Billion USD in 2014 to 20.3 billion in 2017.

Finally, as this Bloomberg article notes (and as I have argued for a long time), the GDP argument is a poor metric to determine a country's contribution to NATO.

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles ... -in-charts

By most other mesasures, Canada is a strong member and contributor to NATO, in some cases surpassing US commitments to the alliance.

[llama66]

herbie herbie:

llama66 llama66:

A bit alarmist, but I understand your point

You have to admit, it's more likely than any other imagined attack scenario.

We could include a major natural disaster, on the level of a Sendai Earthquake or Mt. St. Helen's, or the Great Blackout of 2003 (which wasn't that great, really, or god forbid a Major Pandemic.