The historical perspective, Larry, is that was then and this is now: Canada and the UK fight terrorism as any other criminal activity, within the rule of law, and not by breaking sacred constitutional commitments and international law. Fighting the wrong war in the wrong place at the wrong time has not strengthened our security; by all accounts the other side is growing stronger. We're no longer just looking for a guy in a cave.
That nuclear umbrella you gave us is a dandy analogy for now: The nuclear arsenal was as useless then as it is now in the age of terrorism, fundamentally useless as a deterrent (and Canada had a brigade and CF-104 nuclear-tipped Air Division over there). The threat now is loose nukes escaping from Pakistan and, without some deal with Iran, from there, too.
The brighter side of the mess of Iraq which cost the US so much sympathy and support that it's out of synch with 21st century vulnerabilities and a worn-out 20th century military force, is that the whole world now is pulling for your new President because it's witnessing again the idealism, courage and hope that made modern America the most admired country in the world.
King B
The US (and I personally) lauds and appreciates the UK and the Canadian military commiments to the anti-terrorist war in Afganistan. I have a great deal of experience with both the UK and Canadian Militaries and find them to be wonderful friends and comrades. It's the government policies and funding and use of their own forces that I find incredibly stupid.
Your last paragraph is pure horseshit. I don't give a hoot what anyone around the world thinks of the US. And that certainly includes YOU.
Terrorism is NOT just criminal activity. This is asymetric warfare by anyone's definition and certainly by Al Qaeda's definition. THEY think are at war with not only the US but Canada and most of Europe as well. Your post is so wrong in so many ways I do not know where to start.
You are hosed.
Quailnut
