doublegunshop.com - home Forums General Discussion DoubleGun BBS @ doublegunshop.com Are these liberals you guys talking about?

Jack,
Far be it from me to speak for the Canadians. But, if they didn't pick a fight(s), and in fact are really not very interested in it (them), why should they "punch their weight?"
The Swiss men are all members of the military. Everyone is trained to use a gun and everyone has a gun. They are as free as free men anywhere in the world. Yet, they are a neutral country. Have been for many years. I'm sure you are aware they did not take sides in the World Wars.
I may be wrong, but my perception of the general pulse of the Canadians is that some of the fights the U.S. gets into are not perceived to be Canadian fights and they really do not want to be in those fights.
In fact, there may be some Canadian discomfort with having the most powerful and oil hungry nation in the world at their very long common border. You know, it is a little seceret that if you include the tar sands in the far north, Canada is the second largest holder of oil reserves in the world, right behind Saudi Arabia.
But again, I am just trying to make an objective observation. I am probably influenced by my own precepts as much as anyone.
Best Regards, Jake

My post had nothing to do with "fights," and everything to do with shared responsibilities for continental and North Atlantic defense.

Jack,
If someone plays and wants to join a band, shouldn't they like the style of music the bandmaster favors?
Is there only one right way to handle international political issues and affairs?
Who gets to decide which way is the right way? The guy with the biggest stick?
Do independant countries have a right of self determination as long as they don't interfere in other countries business?
We have a successful local politician in my city that always had the philosophy with folks that they were either with him or his enemy. Is that right?
I don't know.
Jake

When nations ally themselves in mutual defense organizations, one should expect them to share the burden fairly. Canada willingly joined NATO and NORAD, and has continued to enjoy whatever protections those alliances provide - but has never borne a proportionate share of the costs.

Jack, Canada is always there when the chips are down. In WW1 the Canadian Corps was acknowledged as the best formation, Allied or German. Canada ended WW2 with the fourth and fifth biggest navy and air force. NATO was a Canadian idea because of Soviet aggression with Britain and France weakened by war and US struggling with another round of isolationism. The US was torpedoed into WW1 and bombed into WW2.

Our NORAD participation has been spotty because of wariness of US Star War notions. We're one of the few NATO participants fighting in Afghanistan. Canada owes for its freedom the millions who died to defeat fascism. Americans who died with their Canadian brothers at arms would consider it a conceit to say any country owes its freedom to the United States. Don't worry about continental defence. Canada defeated its only invaders in 1812 and is currently going about the terrorist business with competence and quiet assurance.

Canada, as the majority of Americans, isn't buying the sky-is-falling coming out of the White House.

Nice history, King, but it neatly ducks the issue. No one has questioned the courage of Canadian warriors. The issue is Canada's political failure to bear a fair share of the military burden in alliances in which it is a willing partner.

Canada's military investment is about 1.1% of GDP - far below that of its major defense partners in NATO and NORAD. And even below most of the smaller nations, such as tiny Belgium (1.3%), Czech Republic (1.8%), Finland (2%), Netherlands (1.6%), Portugal (2.3%). To Canada's credit, its defense commitment exceeds that of Luxembourg (.9%).

Canada's "spotty" contribution to NORAD and NATO long predates the current resident of the White House, and even Mr. Reagan. For half a century - throughout the Cold War and ever since - Canadian politicians have been happy to save money by freeloading off the defense efforts of its partners. And the Canadian taxpayer has been happy to go along.

To their credit, some Canadian politicians have tried to stiffen their country's flaccid defenses in recent years. The issue has even risen to the surface of public discourse occasionally. But as an ally, you're still doing only half as well as Portugal.

What was said about Canada could just as easily apply to most of NATO. The entire alliance sheltered under our nuclear umbrella for nearly 50 years. And when a situation arises that the Europeans should have been well able to handle on their own--Bosnia/Kosovo--nothing happens until we show up. Interestingly enough, although France is the country we tend to bash the most, it is France more than any other country that has shown itself willing to take independent military action when necessary--on quite a few occasions, mostly in Africa.

Whether "the sky is falling" or not, Islamist terrorists have shown that the United States is not their only target, by attacks on many other NATO nations. Canada itself even disrupted one fairly significant plot recently. So there's certainly no reason the US should be expected to go it alone in Afghanistan, leaving aside the question of Iraq.

In past wars, other nations have carried a greater burden, in terms of per capita casualties, than has the United States. But this time around, again leaving Iraq aside, it's the United States that bears the major burden in terms of "boots on the ground" confronting the Islamist terrorists. Other members of the Western alliance may well have to rethink their commitment, although it may take incidents such as London and Madrid to prod them into action.

Thanks, Larry, for your cogent and accurate analysis. France operations, of course, derive from it independent DeGaulle force frappe, unwilling to believe the US umbrella would would cover it in the event of a Soviet attack.

There's no question that the US has been doing the heavy lifting, and the pity is that seeming aberrations in foreign policy has diminished its enormous contributions to the world. Canada-US disagreement on the Afghanistan poppy fields is not helping our or NATO operations there.

My own notion about all this is that conditions are right for the UN to get down to real business, separate the warring factions in Iraq, find a practical solution to governance of the country (or new countries) and say to a chastened US, "We owe you---but no more going it alone."

As you know, our troops aren't peacekeepers. They're as good as any professional fighting force in the world---small in numbers as is our country but well-trained and willing to fight. If the West gets its political interests aligned properly there should be little fear of Islam terrorists.

Thanks for your post.

I don't think you can measure Canada's participation in world military events based purely on the percentage of GDP that goes into their defense budget. I'd say boots on the ground is a far more relevant stick by which to gauge participation, and Canada is certainly right in there with the other NATO countries that are involved.

Kng, since you seem to like thinking that the world is the same as it was 65 years ago, or as far back as 1812, I'm not going to bother to try and change your mind. However:

To say that NATO was a Canadian idea implies that Canada as a nation came up with the idea. That's simply not true. The actual North Atlantic Treaty was put together by a Canadian citizen. That much is true. However, NATO was already an idea that was taking form well before Canada, USA, and others were brought in on it. The signatories of the Treaty of Brussels wanted the US involved in their alliance to offset the threat of the USSR, and Canada was part of the mix.

The Canadian Corps of WWI was one of the spearhead units for the Allies along with the Australians, and even the American Expeditionary Force. To say that they were "acknowledged as the best formation" is a bit much. I think you'll get different answers to that question based on who you ask.

Canada's population is about one tenth that of the U.S. It shouldn't be surprising that they don't have scads of people in uniform running around the worlds trouble spots. The Canadian military in its entirety is about half the size of the U.S. Marine Corps. They don't need a big army. They have us. I have no problem with our armed forces serving as a proxy in the protection of Canada or any other friendly country. That's what neighbors and allies do. Or should.

As far as this somewhat painfully long thread goes I think you have to chalk it up to cultural differences. In the US we hearken back to a nation that gained freedom by fighting for it. In Canada freedom was granted to them. The end result is the same, but the mentality remains very different. I wouldn't expect a Canadian to understand the importance of our right to bear arms anymore than I can fathom their willingness to go on a months-long waiting list for medical services.

In case anyone thinks this is just an American concern, the following comment from the Canadian Institute for Strategic Studies, on that nation's response to the US Ballistic Missile Defense program, illustrates what I mean by 'flaccid':