Canada denounces the US

[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)

[rb336]

http://news.groopspeak.com/canada-de...-announcement/

I think it is okay,no need to build that bridge now and save the Canadians billions sense they feel the US is so screwed up.She just put millions of American voters into the bridges opposition corner.

That is perhaps the stupidest possible response to what Freeland said, especially since she simply spoke actual verifiable [[by Trump's own idiotic words and actions as well as the reaction of virtually all of our allies to him)

[Richard]

It is not that difficult to understand.

NATO was formed because there are smaller countries that were vulnerable to aggression,a formula was set to cover each countries share of contribution according to the income of the country.

The deal is if you have problems we have each other's back and agree to step in.

Canadas contribution was to be 2% of which 1% was being covered and pushing to lower that.

So who covers the rest?

We have been,okay fine freedom comes at a cost,if you want to enjoy that freedom without paying the price the very least one can do is refrain from chastiseing the host.

She is saying that it is time for Canada to pick up the slack because the US is shunning the world responsibility,that is not the case and how is saying to put up the agreed contribution or do not expect the leval of help.

If one buys insurance and does not pay for the policy does it stay in effect?

Some consider Columbia a third world country but yet they fulfill thier commitment and actually has a military commitment a bit larger then Canada.

[aj3647]

It is not that difficult to understand.

Apparently it is, given the rampant misrepresentation of the 2% of GDP requirement that I'm seeing on display here.

The "2% of GDP on defense" stipulation is not written into the NATO Treaty itself. It was set as a "target" at the 2014 NATO summit, to be worked towards over the span of a decade. It's a guideline, not a legally-binding requirement.

There is no formal penalty built in for nations that do no meet the requirement. Not meeting the requirement in no way abrogates the United States or any other NATO member from coming to that member's defense under Article V of the NATO Treaty.

If Canada doesn't meet that 2% spending requirement by 2024, gets attacked by Russia, and Donald Trump says "fuck you, we're not coming to your defense", then it will be Donald Trump and the United States that violated the terms of the NATO Treaty as it is written, not Canada.

It's like a bunch of co-workers setting a weight loss goal where everyone commits to losing 10lbs by the end of the year. There's no consequence if everyone else loses 10lbs but you don't. You don't get fired because you fell short of the goal.

If Trump feels so strongly about the 2% goal, then at the next NATO summit, he should formally submit to the alliance to amend the treaty to make the "2% of GDP on defense" a requirement of all members. Otherwise, you can't threaten to break a treaty obligation because someone didn't meet an arbitrary, completely-optional benchmark.

[GMan]

If Canada doesn't want to contribute adequately to it's defense than I guess it's their business. But you can guess their stance is based on the premise that the U.S. will bail them out due to their close alliance with the U.S.

[Richard]

Apparently it is, given the rampant misrepresentation of the 2% of GDP requirement that I'm seeing on display here.

The "2% of GDP on defense" stipulation is not written into the NATO Treaty itself. It was set as a "target" at the 2014 NATO summit, to be worked towards over the span of a decade. It's a guideline, not a legally-binding requirement.

There is no formal penalty built in for nations that do no meet the requirement. Not meeting the requirement in no way abrogates the United States or any other NATO member from coming to that member's defense under Article V of the NATO Treaty.

If Canada doesn't meet that 2% spending requirement by 2024, gets attacked by Russia, and Donald Trump says "fuck you, we're not coming to your defense", then it will be Donald Trump and the United States that violated the terms of the NATO Treaty as it is written, not Canada.

It's like a bunch of co-workers setting a weight loss goal where everyone commits to losing 10lbs by the end of the year. There's no consequence if everyone else loses 10lbs but you don't. You don't get fired because you fell short of the goal.

If Trump feels so strongly about the 2% goal, then at the next NATO summit, he should formally submit to the alliance to amend the treaty to make the "2% of GDP on defense" a requirement of all members. Otherwise, you can't threaten to break a treaty obligation because someone didn't meet an arbitrary, completely-optional benchmark.

It would appear as if you have not read the agreement,it is easy to find at the NATO website.

And yes the United States is the depository host for NATO.

Here is some more comment on what President Trump actually said.

https://mobile.nytimes.com/2016/07/2...l9kCFt6ex6nis-

Is President Trump really pissing off NATO allies,well let's look at Japan's feelings about it
as They or a large portion of thier "left" leaning public want the US military out of Japan.

But yet the "right" and those who know full well of the ramifications of a military pull out of
amercian support of Japan,which would be the lose of billions in revenue yearly
and the elephant in the room of Korea itching to launch on them and China pushing hard
to take over thier sovereign fishing grounds.

People seem to have a tendency to place to much stock on a vocal few and use that
as ammunition to fight a cause without a second thought to the ramifications.

Other countries and their politicians have seem to have jumped on this anti Trump
and anti American voters that put him in office,that is fine,that is their propagative
and they have that right.

Just as we have the right not to get involved when other countries decide to go on land grabs
the whole concept of screw you but have our back and cover the cost in American lives and dollars
if the crap hits the fan is a bit one sided.

The saddest part of it all is there are generations that have no clue of what it is
like to live under an occupation force or socialist society but yet they are quick
to embrace it.

Amercia is an ass because of their choice of president,fine easy enough.

You have three choices.

America
China
Russia

Pick one and stick with that choice,we are not forceing anybody to stay and per the agreement each county puts in writing
a one years notice,it's really not that difficult.

[Richard]

If Canada doesn't want to contribute adequately to it's defense than I guess it's their business. But you can guess their stance is based on the premise that the U.S. will bail them out due to their close alliance with the U.S.

I agree with that and really do not have a problem with that,and I understand and appreciate Canada commitment in past conflicts.

Canada as a sovereign nation has decided that their financial responsibility to their citizens,immigration and refugee policies come first over military commitment.

That is also their right as a sovereign nation.

The United States also has a responsibility to her citizens and has failed in that responsibility when it comes to infrastructure and a workable healthcare system.

Asorbing the costs of playing the world police force comes at a price and takes resources away from other programs.

What I have an issue with is the retroric of different countries against this one when it comes to our deficiencies,which in theory we as a nation have been collectively absorbing and sacrificing so they can sleep comfortable at night.

The one thing that is clear is the loudest ones are the ones that are not contributing.

You do not hear the U.K. Complaining or 120 of the other countries involved,it is no different then the trade agreements or the Paris accord,as long as we are funding the bill or the agreement is in the best interest of the opposed country and not the U.S. Then we become an ass when we say it is time to look out for the best interests of this country and its citizens.

[Canadian Visitor]

Richard, you continue to misrepresent things to the point where intelligent debate becomes impossible. You can have your own opinion, but not your own facts!

http://www.nato.int/cps/en/natolive/...exts_17120.htm

No 2% in any treaty.

****

Next, I will again point out for the ignorant, no US bases in Canada, No US missiles in Canada. Only country to invade Canada, the United States.

There really is no bill for my nation's defense, paid by the United States.

There is no question that some European nations benefit from a subsidy of their defense.

Mind you, should the U.S. choose to close bases in Germany I assume you're ok w/them re-arming in full? [[that worked out so well before).

Russia is not going to invade Canada, nor is China.

China poses no realistic threat to NATO countries either.

Russia could be a problem in the Baltics, its unlikely they could stretch further west w/o straining their capabilities.

The common inference that everyone is looking to invade everywhere is paranoid hyperbole and not supported by the facts.

The United States ALONE, outspends Russia on defense by a margin of 9 to 1. Britain is nearly even w/Russia.

If you assumed that combined NATO capability should be 5x that of Russia. Not only is that already the case, but there is room for the US to cut defense [[ by 1/2) and no one else needs to spend more.

[Canadian Visitor]

PS, according to Britain's accounting watchdog, the UK can't afford its military.

https://www.google.ca/url?sa=t&rct=j...nYNslYY40EvyyA

[aj3647]

It would appear as if you have not read the agreement,it is easy to find at the NATO website.

If it's "so easy to find", then it shouldn't be a problem for you to post a link to it and provide a direct quote of the relevant text.

Here, since you can't be bothered to provide sources, I'll do it.

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

That's the entire Wales Summit Declaration from the NATO summit in 2014. Show me where the 2% of GDP on defense is specified as a binding requirement. Show me the text where it outlines what punishment is to be incurred for those nations that fail to meet the goal, and more specifically, where not meeting it is grounds for nullification of Article V.

Show me. I gave you the link, so go ahead and prove me wrong. You're right, I'm wrong, so just show me.

Can you do that?

Forget it, you're just going to ignore it, so I'll just go ahead and once again do the legwork for you. Bolded and underlined for your reading comprehension.

Allies whose current proportion of GDP spent on defence is below this level will:

• halt any decline in defence expenditure;
• aim to increase defence expenditure in real terms as GDP grows;
• aim to move towards the 2% guideline within a decade with a view to meeting their NATO Capability Targets and filling NATO's capability shortfalls.

"Aim to move toward the guideline."
NOT a requirement
NOT binding by treaty
NOT enforceable

From CNN, they sum it up pretty succinctly:
http://money.cnn.com/2017/05/25/news...ump/index.html

To make the idea work, it is important for all members to make sure their armed forces are in good shape. So NATO sets an official target on how much they should spend. That currently stands at 2% of GDP.

The 2% target is described as a "guideline." There is no penalty for not meeting it.

It is up to each country to decide how much to spend and how to use the money.

Now there are things Trump can do to unilaterally punish NATO members if he so chooses. He can withdraw U.S. troops stationed in those countries. He can cut military aid to those nations. He can curtail military cooperation. What he CANNOT do is refuse to defend them if they are attacked and Article 5 comes into play, not without the United States being in violation of the NATO treaty.

[aj3647]

Richard, you continue to misrepresent things to the point where intelligent debate becomes impossible. You can have your own opinion, but not your own facts!

http://www.nato.int/cps/en/natolive/...exts_17120.htm

No 2% in any treaty.

****

Next, I will again point out for the ignorant, no US bases in Canada, No US missiles in Canada. Only country to invade Canada, the United States.

There really is no bill for my nation's defense, paid by the United States.

When the U.S. was attacked on 9/11, Canada answered the call. 159 members of the Canadian Forces have given their lives in the War in Afghanistan. You've paid a price in blood to demonstrate your friendship to your military ally, the United States. Furthermore, Canada is a critical partner in NORAD and helps provide for the collective defense of North America. No one, NO ONE, should question Canada's commitment to the mutual defense pact with the United States.

As an American, a wartime veteran of the armed forces, and a still-serving military reservist, let me thank your nation for all it has done. I'm sorry that there are ungrateful idiots here, including our President, who don't value what your nation has done for our nation and the sacrifices made by your soldiers in Afghanistan.

Just know that there are those of us here who value our bilateral friendship and we outnumber ignorant people like Richard. I've had the pleasure to briefly work with members of the Canadian military and I can say that they are every bit as professional, tough, and skilled as any member of the United States Armed Forces and I'd be happy to serve alongside them again in the future.

[Richard]

I see how it is,right away the name calling kicks in.

Aj I am also x military and have put my life in the line of fire also just as my ancestors have before me,you guys are determined to make this personal when it is not.Shame on you for insinuating that I was being disrespectful to the Canadian military or it past history of,I made it clear in a previous post that was not my intention.

If you are still in military service your commander in chief is President Trump if you feel he is ignorant and you are so discusted working under him maybe it is time to retire.

Quick to call others ingorant but do not even know the meaning of the word pledge.

No where have I posted that the U.S has any military assets in Canada,so why is that even being brought up,or reference of being ignorant?

The 2% of a countries GDP Pledge was a guideline for funding,and extended until 2024.

I also clearly posted that I do not care whether Canada chooses meet that pledge,that is thier choice as a country and I respect that just as on the same accord if this country chooses to make decisions that effects us then we should recieve the same respect in return.




Why pledge something in 2014 knowing full well that it was not going to be abided by?

It is easy to say why have the umbrella or military expenditure when the odds of being attacked are slim,it is called deterrent,just like nukes which are unnecessary,but if you have them others think twice about land grabs.

The French became complacent and said that we have the marginal line to protect us and nobody is really going to attack anyways so dropped military spending.How did that work out.

The world is a history of wars and I guess it is possible to say we have become a world of peace and countries will never outstretch their boundaries and eliminate military all together,but for some reason history has a way of repeating itself.

The days of a bunch of military advisors getting together with a leader and plotting out a plan of action for war are gone. It only takes one person and a push of a button and in a matter of seconds history is changed if you do not have a committed ready to go force you are already finished.

No I do not think China or Russia is going to make a move,but considering past history I would not prefer to stake my life on it.

[Canadian Visitor]

I see how it is,right away the name calling kicks in.

Aj I am also x military and have put my life in the line of fire also just as my ancestors have before me,you guys are determined to make this personal when it is not.Shame on you for insinuating that I was being disrespectful to the Canadian military or it past history of,I made it clear in a previous post that was not my intention.

If you are still in military service your commander in chief is President Trump if you feel he is ignorant and you are so discusted working under him maybe it is time to retire.

Quick to call others ingorant but do not even know the meaning of the word pledge.

No where have I posted that the U.S has any military assets in Canada,so why is that even being brought up,or reference of being ignorant?

The 2% of a countries GDP Pledge was a guideline for funding,and extended until 2024.

I also clearly posted that I do not care whether Canada chooses meet that pledge,that is thier choice as a country and I respect that just as on the same accord if this country chooses to make decisions that effects us then we should recieve the same respect in return.




Why pledge something in 2014 knowing full well that it was not going to be abided by?

It is easy to say why have the umbrella or military expenditure when the odds of being attacked are slim,it is called deterrent,just like nukes which are unnecessary,but if you have them others think twice about land grabs.

The French became complacent and said that we have the marginal line to protect us and nobody is really going to attack anyways so dropped military spending.How did that work out.

The world is a history of wars and I guess it is possible to say we have become a world of peace and countries will never outstretch their boundaries and eliminate military all together,but for some reason history has a way of repeating itself.

The days of a bunch of military advisors getting together with a leader and plotting out a plan of action for war are gone. It only takes one person and a push of a button and in a matter of seconds history is changed if you do not have a committed ready to go force you are already finished.

No I do not think China or Russia is going to make a move,but considering past history I would not prefer to stake my life on it.

Let's move on to current time then. A new, small, NATO battle group is being shifted into Latvia on the Russian border.

That group of around 1,500 soldiers will be lead by Canada. Canada is supplying 450 troops.

http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/edmont...ssia-1.4154973

[Canadian Visitor]

When the U.S. was attacked on 9/11, Canada answered the call. 159 members of the Canadian Forces have given their lives in the War in Afghanistan. You've paid a price in blood to demonstrate your friendship to your military ally, the United States. Furthermore, Canada is a critical partner in NORAD and helps provide for the collective defense of North America. No one, NO ONE, should question Canada's commitment to the mutual defense pact with the United States.

As an American, a wartime veteran of the armed forces, and a still-serving military reservist, let me thank your nation for all it has done. I'm sorry that there are ungrateful idiots here, including our President, who don't value what your nation has done for our nation and the sacrifices made by your soldiers in Afghanistan.

Just know that there are those of us here who value our bilateral friendship and we outnumber ignorant people like Richard. I've had the pleasure to briefly work with members of the Canadian military and I can say that they are every bit as professional, tough, and skilled as any member of the United States Armed Forces and I'd be happy to serve alongside them again in the future.

Thank you for the post.

I truly appreciate it.

[Richard]

Let's move on to current time then. A new, small, NATO battle group is being shifted into Latvia on the Russian border.

That group of around 1,500 soldiers will be lead by Canada. Canada is supplying 450 troops.

http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/edmont...ssia-1.4154973

Yes,I have a friend in Edmonton that called me a few days back concerned,scared about her son deploying.Try and explain that one.

This is a you tube of what is going on and why.

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=wS3DROvygAw

I do wish your troops Godspeed and hope they return home to their families.

You guys also have some of the best snipers in the world.

huff post.ca had an article about how service members were only allowed 49 rounds per year in training and practice because of the lack of funding.

http://m.huffingtonpost.ca/bruce-mon...b_6407088.html

The whole 2% of GDP concept was for each country to properly equip thier forces,if a large action would occur there is no way this country can gear up like we did in WW2 in the time necessary,we have the ability and equipment to transport troops and equipment in a rapid deployment scenario but if something happens it will be hard and fast.

It is important to know who exactly has who's back and to what extent and not wait until the last second.

Russia is getting antsy and Korea has launched intercontinental into Japanese waters,the Middle East is churning up across the board Venezuela is collapsing and is going to add millions to the crisis and President Trump is no President Obama when it comes to codifying.

Call it hysterical but there is to much tension across the board,one hopes it all ends well but not being prepared if it does not has dire consequences.

[oladub]

Justin Trudeau is slipping in polls. Asked if Canadians approved or disapproved of PM Trudeau, 40% of Canadians approved, 56% disapproved. Deficit spending is hurting Trudeaus's popularity the most. This being Canada, Trudeau's immigration policies were not questioned. For comparison, the latest Economist/YouGov poll has Trump's approval/disapproval rating at 41/54 and Rasumussen at 47/54.
http://angusreid.org/federal-issues-march2018/

Conservatives are more popular now in Ontario than Liberals. In Quebec, liberals are losing ground.

[Canadian Visitor]

Justin Trudeau is slipping in polls. Asked if Canadians approved or disapproved of PM Trudeau, 40% of Canadians approved, 56% disapproved. Deficit spending is hurting Trudeaus's popularity the most. This being Canada, Trudeau's immigration policies were not questioned. For comparison, the latest Economist/YouGov poll has Trump's approval/disapproval rating at 41/54 and Rasumussen at 47/54.
http://angusreid.org/federal-issues-march2018/

Conservatives are more popular now in Ontario than Liberals. In Quebec, liberals are losing ground.

Not sure why this is in this thread, but w/e.

Trudeau is indeed slipping a bit, though still ahead in most polls vs the Conservatives and NDP.

That's not an endorsement, just a statement on the 'horse race'.

Trudeau is entering year 3 of his government, with an election due in 2019.

He just came back from a trip to India, where he appeared to have been snubbed by the Indian government, was lampooned for wearing too much 'traditional' Indian garb, and induced much domestic cringe for having managed to get a convicted terrorist on an invite list for a big event.

Of course that wasn't all his call personally, but when you're the leader, you rightly have to wear some of this.

The second issue he's facing is that he's bungled a couple of big promises [[electoral reform and low deficits); been pokey about a few others; and people are increasingly finding the touch-feely bit overdone, less so for what it is, than because government policy and rhetoric may not be aligned. In other words, too much flash, too little substance.

They also had a bad fall where the Finance minister was supposed to roll out changes to reduce tax evasion by some small businesses.

But when they unveiled the details, it looked as though they might be throwing farmers, and doctors under the proverbial bus, and they had to back peddle.

Federally, the Conservatives are currently led by Andrew Scheer, about as exciting as watching paint dry. They may be a threat to the Liberals next year just the same, but the NDP [[socialists) are just as likely a threat, presuming their leader can keep his foot out of his mouth on the issue of Sikh extremism

***

Ontario has an election coming up in June.

The Liberals have been in power here for 18 years now, through 2 different premiers.

Between that, some scandals, and steeply rising electricity bills [[most power utilities are government owned here) the Libs are up against still headwinds.

Again, the NDP are also in play.

Polls have ranged, but generally look something like

Conservative 38, Liberal 30, NDP 26, Greens 6

That's a big lead, but not as big as the one the Conservatives had going into each of the last two provincial elections, before blowing it and losing badly.

So its still anybody's game.

We have yet to see a full platform picture from any of the parties, that's expected in the next 2 weeks or so.

So far, the Liberals of committed to removing co-pays and deductibles for prescription drugs to seniors.

The NDP has committed to universal dental care.

The Conservatives have said they will reduce hospital wait times for elective procedures, and have suggested they would like to raise the tax-free exemption on earnings to $30,000.

No one has released a full list of promises or detailed costing.