I fully agree with you there. My point was in response to the idea that Canada somehow owes the US for its large military, suggested by Daddio. No taxation without representation, remember? We have no representatives in your government, so why should we pay for your military. So while I agree with your comments above (seems we two seldom agree, so this is a surprise), you seem to have misunderstood my intent. I was simply opposing the idea that canada owes the US anything for the defense it imposes on us no matter how benevolent it might be.

I do agree. After all, you have a US military, not a world military. So why is it acting like a world military. The best thing your country coudl do to help us right now, ironically enough, is:

1. Stop worrying about us (we'll take care of ourselves, thank you very much), and

2. Start helping yourselves by paying off your own debt and getting your own fiscal house in order.

I don't think he was saying you should hand over money to us. I think he was more implying that you should have a stronger military. But, that is your own choice, just like having a large military is ours. So, no, Canada doesn't owe us anything but they also can't deny that they have no need spend much on military because we are your neighbor and friend. Do not deny this. If something happened and ya'll were put in the cross-hairs we'd rain down fury on them for messing with you.

Well, we are not the world military and I do resent that role we play but...you can't deny that the world expects a lot from us. You can't deny that we give more aid and assistance to other countries than anyone else.

I am, by no means trying to sound condescending but you really can't take care of yourselves. I mean, maybe if you were attacked by Argentina or something you could fend them off but you are, by no means, even in the same ballpark of many countries.

100% agree.

__________________
A government which robs Peter to pay Paul can always depend on the support of Paul.
- George Bernard Shaw

Fair enough. That's your own choice. But personally, I'd rather the US reduce it's military spending and let Canada take its chances in that big bad world. After all, just as we have no obligation towards the US, the US has no obligation towards us. And I'd like to point out that none of this criticism is intended as mean-spirited. As a matter of fact, I'd love to see Canada grant more freedom of labour movement for US workers into Canada regardless of whether the US reciprocates, as I believe this would help build stronger relations between our countries. But the fact of the matter is, we don't see eye to eye on our views of the threat. What American's perceive as real threats to North America, many Canadians perceive as imaginary boogeymen induced by paranoia. And that's fine. To each his own, as long as it doesn't sour relations between the people.



Honestly, I don't believe many in the world expect this of the US. My impression is that Americans believe the world expects this of the US. Personally, I think the best thing the US could do to help its neighbours right now is to help itself. After all, you can't help us while you're own currency is risking a cave in under the weight of debt.


Argentina has not expressed any interest in attacking Canada to begin with. Nor has Russia. In theory, you're right, Russia could probably crush Canada militarily. But again, show me one quote that indicates that Russia even has that intention.

Actually, here's another way I could see Canada helping out:

Canada could contribute financially to a world military force of a maximum of 100,000 well trained and equipped men, recruited from around the world, and with the mission of destroying any government in violation of international law, in accordance with international law (in other words, adhering to theprinciple that the ends do not justify the means). Such a contribution I could agree to as it woudl ensure a neutral force looking out for the interests of all rather than just its own 'national interests', generally a code word for screwing the others over.

Well, I feel an obligation to Canada. Just as if I was walking the street and saw a friend of mine getting mugged, I couldn't just stand there and do nothing. What kind of friend could I call myself?

Well, maybe we have a false feeling then. It seems to me that a lot is expected of us. Think about this. If we decided we didn't want to be part of the UN and we pulled all our money and resources out, do you think there'd be a UN left? I mean, even with us there ( the "big stick" ), the world mocks their authority.

Well, right. Argentina hasn't expressed any desire to do so. I was simply pointing out that Canada can't really defend itself. The best they can hope for is to be seen too harmless to go after. If any trouble visited Canada it would already be too late as the only ones capable of putting up a fight ( the US ) would have to have been eliminated. So yeah, Canada is pretty safe because they are pretty low on the priority list of any country that has ambitions.

Now this thought is downright scary. Maybe it's just an American attitude but I have no faith in a international army. Most Americans instinctively cringe at the idea of a world gov that has any authority/power. We simply don't trust in the motivation driving it. It reminds me of a quote from Benjamin Franklin, "Any society that would give up a little liberty to gain a little security will deserve neither and lose both."

__________________
A government which robs Peter to pay Paul can always depend on the support of Paul.
- George Bernard Shaw

The US should re assess it's military, cut out the waste and the stuff that is of no use and take the 500 billion a year in savings and use it to close the deficit.

__________________
“ The subjects of every state ought to contribute towards the support of the government, as nearly as possible, in proportion to their respective abilities; that is, in proportion to the revenue which they respectively enjoy under the protection of the state.”

Adam Smith , The Wealth of Nations 1776

"We have always known that heedless self-interest was bad morals; we know now that it is bad economics"
FDR's second Inaugural Address

Mackenzie King/FDR had an agreement which basically said as much.

Completely a false economy.

They do. Canada has some troubles endemic to its geography (large area to protect, small population) and some troubles related to its military's PR department never telling the public what its doing and why in a sufficient manner, but Canada does put a lot of effort into joint defense with the US.

We do? From whom?

Agreed. For this reason I think Canada could be more generous in sharing its land with others, through immigration, or freer movement of labour to Canada, for example.

Not many, primarily because they know the US would step in even if they weren't formally allied. However, many threats exist short of an armed invasion or a direct attack which Canada is more secure from and more able to protect and assist its citizens as a result of its close ties with the United States. Whether its cooperation against international criminals, joint SAR, or even joint responses during natural disasters.

The other thing is Canada doesn't participate so extensively with the US solely out of interest of national protection. Canada and indeed many Canadians like to think of themselves as a middle power, and enjoy the ability to take a part on an international scene which is disproportionate to its size and international power. Canada's membership in the G8, role in NATO, and indeed the size of its military capabilities are all a direct result of its closeness with the United States.

Now you used that quote of Francklin's before to refute the same idea in other threads, and I've never understood the logic of it yet. Following that logic, then each US state has given up a little liberty to the US to gain a little security from it and so deserves neither and will lose both. We can take this logic even further and say that individual local communities have given up a little liberty to higher a higher level of government to gain a little securily and so deserves neither and will lose both. And we can even take it further and say that any person who allows any level of government to have a military instead of training and arming himself has given up some liberty for security and so deserves neither and will lose both. So, are you suggesting that we should elimintate all militaries and make each man a one-man army?

At the moment? The biggest areas or cooperation would be international criminals and natural disasters. Cooperation which can help the Canadian military intercept human traffickers. Further your country is quite vulnerable to terrorism by virtue that by simply attacking from Canada, terrorists could potentially cripple your economy.

Its not a lack of immigration which has kept large swaths of your country uninhabited.

Canada has contributed more to the NATO mission in Afghanistan than just about anyone else.

__________________
"Jesus said: I have cast fire upon the world, and behold I guard it until it is ablaze."
Gospel of Thomas

I wasn't disputing that. The thing is Canada has been able to train, fund, and equip the Canadian Military in a manner which would not be possible for virtually any other similarly sized nation. The reason it has been able to do so has been the agreements with the US which have not been available to any other nation.

Consider that when a Canadian company produces a military good it is able to sell it in the United States without being considered a foreign competitor. This has allowed Canadian arms manufacturers to stay somewhat viable. Consider that Canada does not need to attempt to have every single piece of military equipment when its gaps can be easily assumed by the US Military, and done so easily because of their routine training with the US Military.

Canada's contribution to Afghanistan has been disproportionate to what one would expect from a country of its size. The reason it has been able to do this has been its close ties with the US.

Since WWII where the Canadian Military is today has been influenced by the US Military. Starting with when the US military kept the British from continuing to use Canadian soldiers as cannon fodder.

Why couldn't that be a police matter?

Again, not an exclusively military matter, and one that could just as easily be dealt with by a civilian emergency response force if we had the desire to create one.

Again, why couldn't the civilian police handle that if we trained and equipped them for it?

Again, the police could handle this more efficiently than the military. A police officer at at airport security could do much more to thwart terrorism on Canadian soil than a military fighter pilot. Once the plane is in the air, it's too late. Does it not make more sense to prevent the terrorist from getting onto the plane in the first place rather than blow a civilian airliner out of the sky? The military is neither trained nor equipped to deal with civilian terrorism. That's a civilian police specialty.

It can help.

The Halifax Police does not maintain deep sea vessels. The RCMP does not interdict cargo vessels in international waters. They don't have satellite tracking, they don't handle international waters. They don't maintain boarding parties, they don't train for naval combat. They don't do this because their work happens on land.

Whats more NATO is a military organization, if Canada is going to be receiving intelligence from other militaries it needs to be contributing to the group. If it wants to know if a UK nuclear submarine is conducting trials near Canadian waters it needs submarines or it will not be informed. If that submarine founders and requires a recovery team which could very well affect Canadian interests, and Canada does not have a military Canada will be ignored.

When Canada has submarines Canada will be informed as a matter of course and a matter of joint safety. If Canada is a member of NATO it will be a part of any operation to recover that submarine.

Not exclusively but civilian teams do not routinely require the level of training and equipment which would justify them purchasing military grade equipment for disaster relief. You can't deploy a civilian team overseas in hostile conditions the way you can do so with a military team. The civilian teams do not train with the US military and if there was a major natural disaster you are going to be wanting the logistical expertise of the United States Military getting the food and supplies to isolated locations.

Because that detracts from their ability to handle their every day operations. the police routinely liaise with military when it changes jurisdictions or when they have a subject of mutual interest. But the fact is they do not handle these issues on a regular basis and they have no interest or capability of doing so.

If you have a hijacked plane in the air that is going to be used as an improvised missile what is that police officer going to do? Run outside and try to shoot it down with his pistol? If you have a plane which is unresponsive, but you don't know if the pilots are unconscious, if the plane has been taken hostage, or if they had a radio failure, what are you going to do? Just hope for the best?

Hardly, you can still mitigate damage, potentially even avert it.

Yes, but if the terrorists get on that plane, it is better to have the military there to force them to land at an Air Force base where JTF2 is waiting to storm that plane and take them out should hostage negotiations fail.

No, large portions of your country do not make sense to inhabit. If someone is going to immigrate to Canada they are going to immigrate to somewhere there is a job.

doesn't matter. everyone gunning for us could easily miss.

and NATO membership requires us to be a diligent ally.

__________________
Socialism doesn't create a rising tide that lifts all boats. It drains the lake and teaches the boat riders not to help themselves by rowing.

Jesus loves you, allah wants you dead

"Every government interference in the economy consists of giving an unearned benefit, extorted by force, to some men at the expense of others."

Ayn Rand