Canada denounces the US

[Canadian Visitor]

Actualy 26th

http://www.globalfirepower.com/count...ntry_id=Canada


Misrepresentation of facts ?

https://jobsearch.military.com/daily...icy-shift.html

Outside of her half French and half English speech,what is in the link that I posted that she did not say?


As a Canadian do you feel that now diverting billions to the military is going to effect your health care system and if not where will the funding come from?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_o...Strength_Index

20th

LOL

[[either way, well above population ranking)

****

As to misrepresentation.

You suggested that she stated American voters choices cast doubt on America's ability to lead. That may or may not be the case, but it is most certainly not what she said.

And I quote.


"The United States has truly been the indispensable nation, Mr. Speaker. For their unique, seven-decades-long contribution to our shared peace ‎and prosperity, and on behalf of all Canadians, I would like to profoundly thank our American friends.


As I have argued, Canada believes strongly that this stable, predictable international order has been deeply in our national interest. And we believe it has helped foster peace and prosperity for our ‎southern neighbours, too.



Yet it would be naive or hypocritical to claim before this House that all Americans today agree. Indeed, many of the voters in last year’s presidential election cast their ballots, animated in part by a desire to shrug off the burden of world leadership. To say this is not controversial: it is simply a fact.

Canada is grateful, and will always be grateful, to our neighbour for the outsized role it has played in the world. And we seek and will continue to seek to persuade our friends that their continued international leadership is very much in their national interest—as well as that of the rest of the free world.


Yet we also recognize that this is ultimately not our decision to make. It is a choice Americans must make for themselves.

The fact that our friend and ally has come to question the very worth of its mantle of global leadership, puts into sharper focus the need for the rest of us to set our own clear and sovereign course. For Canada that course must be the renewal, indeed the strengthening, of the postwar multilateral order."

[[next time, get the quote right)

*****

Finally, on the subject of diversion of health dollars to defense.

There is none.

The Federal gov't in Canada has promised increases in healthcare spending that are the greater of 3% or annual GDP increase as far as the eye can see.

There is no drastic increase in operations costs in defence projected either.

What there is is long overdue cap-x for the navy and the airforce, the latter of which hasn't been tendered yet, but will be pricey as we are replacing all our C[[F-18s).

Likely with either F-35s or Super-Hornets.

The speech merely justifies [[in part) where revenues from economic growth and/or tax hikes will go)

[Richard]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_o...Strength_Index

20th

LOL

[[either way, well above population ranking)

****

As to misrepresentation.

You suggested that she stated American voters choices cast doubt on America's ability to lead. That may or may not be the case, but it is most certainly not what she said.

And I quote.


"The United States has truly been the indispensable nation, Mr. Speaker. For their unique, seven-decades-long contribution to our shared peace ‎and prosperity, and on behalf of all Canadians, I would like to profoundly thank our American friends.


As I have argued, Canada believes strongly that this stable, predictable international order has been deeply in our national interest. And we believe it has helped foster peace and prosperity for our ‎southern neighbours, too.



Yet it would be naive or hypocritical to claim before this House that all Americans today agree. Indeed, many of the voters in last year’s presidential election cast their ballots, animated in part by a desire to shrug off the burden of world leadership. To say this is not controversial: it is simply a fact.

Canada is grateful, and will always be grateful, to our neighbour for the outsized role it has played in the world. And we seek and will continue to seek to persuade our friends that their continued international leadership is very much in their national interest—as well as that of the rest of the free world.


Yet we also recognize that this is ultimately not our decision to make. It is a choice Americans must make for themselves.

The fact that our friend and ally has come to question the very worth of its mantle of global leadership, puts into sharper focus the need for the rest of us to set our own clear and sovereign course. For Canada that course must be the renewal, indeed the strengthening, of the postwar multilateral order."

[[next time, get the quote right)

*****

Finally, on the subject of diversion of health dollars to defense.

There is none.

The Federal gov't in Canada has promised increases in healthcare spending that are the greater of 3% or annual GDP increase as far as the eye can see.

There is no drastic increase in operations costs in defence projected either.

What there is is long overdue cap-x for the navy and the airforce, the latter of which hasn't been tendered yet, but will be pricey as we are replacing all our C[[F-18s).

Likely with either F-35s or Super-Hornets.

The speech merely justifies [[in part) where revenues from economic growth and/or tax hikes will go)

So let's look at what President Trump actually said,which is the nations of NATO need to start paying thier share.

Canada is supposed to be paying 2% of which they are paying 1%,the same with other countries.

Now reread her statement that starts with "Yet it would be naive or hypocritical " .

So America saying that it is time for countries to chip in thier fair share in policing the world it makes us shrugging off the burden of world leadership?

Those are her words.

So it kinda comes off as we are the nice guys as long as we are footing the bill.

[aj3647]

So let's look at what President Trump actually said,which is the nations of NATO need to start paying thier share.

Canada is supposed to be paying 2% of which they are paying 1%,the same with other countries.

The "2% of GDP on defense" benchmark, set by NATO in 2014, was agreed to be phased in over a decade. Which means NATO nations have until 2024 to raise their defense spending to 2% of GDP. There is no obligation for them to be spending that much RIGHT NOW, in 2017. It's a goal to be worked towards over time, not immediately met.

http://www.nato.int/cps/ic/natohq/of...xts_112964.htm

[Canadian Visitor]

So let's look at what President Trump actually said,which is the nations of NATO need to start paying thier share.

As I recall, in an infamous NY Times interview, Trump was asked whether or not the United States would even honour its NATO obligation if an ally were attacked........

His response was .....

"Have they fulfilled their obligations to us? If they fulfill their obligations to us, the answer is yes"

[[never mind that the NATO commitment does not involve any payment to the United States)

Full Interview here: https://www.nytimes.com/2016/07/22/u...view.html?_r=0

***

That said, I don't believe her speech was referencing that one line. It referenced a campaign slogan "America First" and general gist from his policy pronouncements [[such as pulling out of the Paris Climate Agreement) the United States would de-emphasize multi-laterism under his watch.

That isn't a 'bad guy' thing; its what he ran on; and at least in part, what some of his voters supported.

The speech didn't say 'America has gone rogue' It suggested that IF America was to pull back on its leadership in global affairs, other countries would have to pick up the slack.

Your reaction to this is hysterical [[not in the funny way).

***

While I happen to support, as does the current Cdn gov't a needed lift in defence expenditure here vis a vis replacement fighter jets and naval ships, I am personally unpersuaded by the 2% target. Its benefit isn't tangible. Its an arbitrary number, one pushed by the US for some years, largely, I suspect because most of the west buys a good chunk of its military hardware from US suppliers.

From the point of view of accurately matching threat capabilities [[where feasible), most nations would do just fine at a much lower level. [[including the United States)