Another USA warning to NATO members.....

[Army Guy]

48 minutes ago, dre said:

There is no "stated rate". There's non binding "guidelines".

The stated rate is 2 % of GDP......if it is non binding then why is most NATO countries getting in line with that rate....whay are countries that are well below that rate moving to come up with a plan to move them in to that 2 % GDP.....Because they like Trump so much....why are they simply not say no thank you....

[dre]

1 hour ago, Army Guy said:

The stated rate is 2 % of GDP......if it is non binding then why is most NATO countries getting in line with that rate....whay are countries that are well below that rate moving to come up with a plan to move them in to that 2 % GDP.....Because they like Trump so much....why are they simply not say no thank you....

It IS non binding. Go and read the guidelines yourself.

[bush_cheney2004]

Canada got/gets plenty from NATO, and it was Canadian self interest that drove Washington Treaty Chapter 2 economic considerations between NATO partners....the majority of defense contractor manufacturing in Canada is foreign owned, and Canada's defense exports far exceed domestic procurements.

 

Quote

...In pursuing the proposed Alliance, Canada sought and ultimately secured a provision that obligated all member states to promote greater economic collaborations amongst themselves. In effect, Canada secured a favoured nation clause for the purpose of furthering trade within the treaty states. Canada’s emergence as a strong voice in the NATO discussions was a signal of the nation’s growing influence.²⁵ As a result of Canadian insistence upon the incorporation of an economic obligation in the agreement, Article 2 of the Washington Treaty has become known as the Canada Clause. This article proclaims, in part, that the signatories will seek to eliminate conflict in their international economic policies, and will encourage economic collaboration between any or all of them.²⁶

http://www.journal.forces.gc.ca/vo7/no2/lawless-anarchiq-eng.asp

 

 

[Argus]

49 minutes ago, dre said:

It IS non binding. Go and read the guidelines yourself.

Do you think Trump is going to consider it binding?

[dre]

45 minutes ago, Argus said:

Do you think Trump is going to consider it binding?

If I want advice on which celebrity chef to fire Mr Trump will be the first one I talk to. His opinion on Canada's military spending? Couldn't care less. 

 

[dre]

1 hour ago, Army Guy said:

WOW that is a lot of examples.....spending targets are not mandatory they are highly recommended.....and yet most nations will be spending more on their militaries....except Canada who will for some reason be deferring all expenditures until 2030....

That's just fine. Different countries have different defense needs. Setting defense spending as a % of GDP is stupid anyways. Our nation does not cost more to defend just because we produce more widgets. Some of these other countries exist in hostile regions, and have multiple international borders with potential adversaries. 

There may be valid reasons for us to increase defense spending but meeting NATO guidelines is not one of them.

[Army Guy]

3 hours ago, dre said:

It IS non binding. Go and read the guidelines yourself.

You can call it what ever you like why is most NATO countries now increasing their % of GDP that is spent on the military.....Why are they doing that,......yes because they can always say no thank you...were good at 1 %.....Germany has already told trump.....yes we will increase out spending....other nations are following suit.....wonder why....a non binding agreement is being followed.....DO you think that Canada is going to be the first nation to say AAAAHHHHH screw it, i'm not playing.....

 

[Army Guy]

2 hours ago, dre said:

That's just fine. Different countries have different defense needs. Setting defense spending as a % of GDP is stupid anyways. Our nation does not cost more to defend just because we produce more widgets. Some of these other countries exist in hostile regions, and have multiple international borders with potential adversaries. 

There may be valid reasons for us to increase defense spending but meeting NATO guidelines is not one of them.

I agree with you setting defense needs as per % of GDP  is stupid.....but there is a reason, and Canada is a perfect example, Our military needs a major reorg, for the bottom up....it needs someone to tell our government that it needs to spend some thing one equipment.....embarrassing really, that we need someone to baby sit us because we are not grown up enough to do it ourselves...... It was designed that way because some nations did not or could not offer enough.....those that could afford more would pay more....we knew that before we signed anything.....

those non binding guide lines may become guide lines if that is necessary.....right now the US is paying the bills, and they are looking to stop that.....and if leaving NATO or perhaps kicking out a few nations is the answer then so be it.........Until then we will be a light weight in NATO sphere , and just a few years ago peter mackay was calling other nations free loaders because they would not give out troops.....and yet in Yugo Canada was known as CANT BAT 1 and CANT BAT 2 because there was so many restrictions placed upon the usage of canadian troops that we were in country but could not be used for anything useful. ya great reputation....it was not until Afghanistan that our government took the kid gloves off and we earned our reputation that we have now....with the effort and blood of our soldiers.....

And your right there are a million reason for us to invest more into our military.....and our defensive agreements are just some of them, NATO, "freeloading", Norad "freeloading" ABCA freeloading, sure our politicians talk a good game....and spend many hours trying to look for ways to boast what we declare as DND spending to the world, such as including the coast guard and RCMP budget wow.....that's honest  and keeping with sunney ways....

[PIK]

The budget tells me, we are entering a new decade of darkness.

[overthere]

17 minutes ago, PIK said:

The budget tells me, we are entering a new decade of darkness.

The budget tells me that Trudeau intends to copy Chretien.  1. cut military spending while bleating about our contribution to world peace. 2.  Send Canadian men and women of the armed forces into harms way while poorly equipped.

 

Canada is back all right, back to borderline insanity at best, criminal and wanton negligence at worst.

[Argus]

19 hours ago, dre said:

If I want advice on which celebrity chef to fire Mr Trump will be the first one I talk to. His opinion on Canada's military spending? Couldn't care less. 

Those who would prefer not to have Trump putting in some kind of big border tax on us or impeding the free flow of goods and investment, in other words, those of us who actually have more interest in the reality of the well-being of Canada as opposed to our own sanctimonious ideological positions, generally disagree with you.

[bush_cheney2004]

9 minutes ago, Argus said:

Those who would prefer not to have Trump putting in some kind of big border tax on us or impeding the free flow of goods and investment, in other words, those of us who actually have more interest in the reality of the well-being of Canada as opposed to our own sanctimonious ideological positions, generally disagree with you.

 

Very true...despite all their sanctimonious bluster....economics trumps virtue.   Canadian ministers are stroking hard in the U.S. right now to curtail or limit the impact of any taxes and thickening of the border.   Boycotting Heinz ketchup only goes so far.

NATO treaty Chapter 2 is the "Canadian Clause" for more trade.

Edited March 24, 2017 by bush_cheney2004

[dre]

55 minutes ago, Argus said:

Those who would prefer not to have Trump putting in some kind of big border tax on us or impeding the free flow of goods and investment, in other words, those of us who actually have more interest in the reality of the well-being of Canada as opposed to our own sanctimonious ideological positions, generally disagree with you.

Really... you figure Canadians think politicians in other countries should dictate to us what we spend on things, by threatening us?

With that sort of defeatist attitude why even both with a military. Just surrender if someone invades.

[herples]

On 3/11/2017 at 4:48 PM, Army Guy said:

You make it sound like the US is stuck, that they have no choice but to bear all the burden, of costs and manpower ....while the rest of the lurkers go on parting like it was 1999. What exactly does the US have to do to make you believe that the free ride is over.....and yet maybe they are doing it because their are tired of paying the bill and the US does need NATO, NATO needs the us, you should keep that in mind.....they are standing at our table with their hands out....time to man up and give up some of the party money...

The US needs NATO in order to keep it's sphere of influence in Europe. 

[Argus]

20 hours ago, dre said:

Really... you figure Canadians think politicians in other countries should dictate to us what we spend on things, by threatening us?

With that sort of defeatist attitude why even both with a military. Just surrender if someone invades.

I think the US has a legitimate complaint whereby they signed onto a military treaty with countries who decided that thereafter they could shirk their responsibilities under that treaty and let their military rust out on the assumption the Americans would backstop them. A military alliance is supposed to be more than a one way street. If certain nations don't want to fund their military to the degree they can actually be of any value in contributing to a joint defense or deterrent then they should be expelled from that alliance. And given human nature, and given who is in he White House, I an see indignation over that sort of thing spreading to other files and other parts of a relationship.

[Argus]

56 minutes ago, herples said:

The US needs NATO in order to keep it's sphere of influence in Europe. 

Trump doesn't give a damn about that.

[hot enough]

1 hour ago, Argus said:

I think the US has a legitimate complaint whereby they signed onto a military treaty with countries

Not everyone wants to hitch their wagon to a band of war criminals and terrorists. But I respect your right to do so.

[Argus]

2 minutes ago, hot enough said:

Not everyone wants to hitch their wagon to a band of war criminals and terrorists. But I respect your right to do so.

Actually, with most of your posts here, it's fairly obvious you've already done so.

[Army Guy]

On 3/24/2017 at 5:44 PM, dre said:

Really... you figure Canadians think politicians in other countries should dictate to us what we spend on things, by threatening us?

With that sort of defeatist attitude why even both with a military. Just surrender if someone invades.

I think we should not have to have politicians tell us anything....we should have the responsibility to these things ourselves....embarrassing really, kind of like mom and dad having to tell you to pay your bills or you can't drive the car....But there are some Canadians who think who the hell does this guy think he is , telling me to pay my bills.....the nerve....

Well that guy is the guy who has been paying your portion of the bill, and he's telling you buck the fuc* up, the free ride is over....pay your own bills.....want to cry there is the door don't let it hit you in the ass, on the way out "freeloader"

Your absolutly right , save a few bucks and sell off the military.....but when you come face to face with the consequences of that idea...you'll need to man up...and stop crying like a little girl.....

[eyeball]

4 hours ago, Army Guy said:

I think we should not have to have politicians tell us anything....we should have the responsibility to these things ourselves....embarrassing really, kind of like mom and dad having to tell you to pay your bills or you can't drive the car...

Bullshit you think that.  You have repeatedly refused to have anything to do with Canadians voting on whether we should send you off to invade a foreign country or leaving it up to Canadians to put their money where they put their vote and invest in war bonds.

Instead you insist that our money be conscripted whether we like it or not and then provide the background for the politicians photo-ops.

We should no more trust you than we should a politician.  Following people like you can result in millions being killed.

[Topaz]

On 2017-02-23 at 2:53 PM, ?Impact said:

I can tell you I was not there. I was against Afghanistan from long before, but yes there were all sorts of calls for bombing those goat herders back to the 7th century. Like I do today, I was then trying to voice an opposition to those vocal masses. Trenton/Bellville is a military town, so it is hard to say how representative those voices were of mainstream Canadians compared to the family & close neighbours to those who were being sent on a mission and expressing their direct support. It is always hard to tell the mainstream opinion from the vocal masses, and we don't get asked in this pseudo democracy we run under. I don't know what polling was done in the early days, I know that there were a lot of polls around 2008 timeframe that showed Canadians against the mission, where Americans didn't really turn until 2014 or so. A big part of the problem was the statements coming out of the Whitehouse that Americans and Canadians alike bought into. Remember the perception was we were going into Afghanistan to get Bin Laden. 

The US didn't have go into Afghanistan to get Bin Laden because he was an CIA agent, they could sent one CIA and put a bullet in his head, which they have  good experience at, we all know it was about control over the ME and its natural resources. Millions of people have died for  other national ""interest" and  kids  died and many more will have mental health issues like "I" hate the West.

[Army Guy]

On 3/25/2017 at 11:03 PM, eyeball said:

Bullshit you think that.  You have repeatedly refused to have anything to do with Canadians voting on whether we should send you off to invade a foreign country or leaving it up to Canadians to put their money where they put their vote and invest in war bonds.

Instead you insist that our money be conscripted whether we like it or not and then provide the background for the politicians photo-ops.

We should no more trust you than we should a politician.  Following people like you can result in millions being killed.

Yes, i know , it is bullshit when you have to be reminded to pay the bill of joining the NATO defensive pact, instead our government is spending more hours trying to get out of paying, than it does actually on our own military...Yes, i did say that currently o did not trust the Average Canadian to make inform decisions on foreign policy matters, and yet some how that is my fault, I mean the during the start of the Afghanistan conflict the majority of Canadians were for the conflict and sending our troops over there....then half way through the mission changed their minds but did not have the energy to bring us back.......but were vocal enough to have all the governmental funding and support shut down.....but forgot about our soldiers.......there is more if you want me to go on......the average Canadian knows very little about our military, or foreign policy, it does interest them, and when press about it they get angry and spit our what do we need a military for ? once again proving they know squat about our military....same as the most of the posters here, know squat about our military and yet.....get angry when their opinion is not taken seriously, and then take it our on those that have taken the time to through experience or past knowledge to try to explain it to you.....of which you want no part of...So now it comes down to name calling or dick measuring.....Like i made all the rules, like i create policy.....

I don't insist anything about how your tax dollars are collected or spent.....that has been government policy since before i was born....i get it your looking for a scapegoat....and i happened into your site picture.....let me say this again....i don't create policy, nor do i decide on how our tax dollars is spent.....

Following me.....that shit is funny, like i ran the our military....i made those decisions.......maybe you need to climb down from your tree, start collecting some more nuts , you look a bit peckish, may i'll give you a snickers bar , because your not thinking clearly... 

[PIK]

On 3/24/2017 at 3:53 PM, bush_cheney2004 said:

 

Very true...despite all their sanctimonious bluster....economics trumps virtue.   Canadian ministers are stroking hard in the U.S. right now to curtail or limit the impact of any taxes and thickening of the border.   Boycotting Heinz ketchup only goes so far.

NATO treaty Chapter 2 is the "Canadian Clause" for more trade.

I switched to frenches and it is better.

[PIK]

On 3/26/2017 at 11:26 AM, Topaz said:

The US didn't have go into Afghanistan to get Bin Laden because he was an CIA agent, they could sent one CIA and put a bullet in his head, which they have  good experience at, we all know it was about control over the ME and its natural resources. Millions of people have died for  other national ""interest" and  kids  died and many more will have mental health issues like "I" hate the West.

LOL.

[eyeball]

15 minutes ago, Army Guy said:

Yes, i did say that currently o did not trust the Average Canadian to make inform decisions on foreign policy matters, and yet some how that is my fault,

No, that's our fault for surrendering too much responsibility to politicians. You however don't want to leave it up to politicians or voters so that just leaves you and your ilk to decide. So how would you feel about letting fishermen decide when they can or can't fish? How do you think Canadians would feel about that?

Quote

I mean the during the start of the Afghanistan conflict the majority of Canadians were for the conflict and sending our troops over there....then half way thruogh the mission changed their minds but did not have the energy to bring us back.......but were vocal enough to have all the governmental funding and support shut down.....but forgot about our soldiers.......there is more if you want me to go on...

I've addressed this concern about lukewarm support several times before by suggesting that a super-majority be required to ensure there is little to no ambiguity - 75% of the electorate in a mandatory vote should suffice.  Note this super-majority would only be required for invasive military action we engage in, not to defend ourselves from an invasion.

Quote

...the average Canadian knows very little about our military, or foreign policy, it does interest them, and when press about it they get angry and spit our what do we need a military for ?

Apparently there is an awful lot that our government does that Canadians know very little about. Perhaps you should argue instead for greater transparency - a more enlightened informed electorate might see things a lot more the way you do although you seem to recognize that when it does become interested it backfires on you.

It's because you're so caught between a rock and a hard place that I have to ask why you insist on volunteering to stay there?  You really think Canadians are ones that are being stupid about this?