Has Trump made it necessary to disband NATO?

[-1=e^ipi]

5 hours ago, Machjo said:

If Canada leaves NATO, it clearly could not defend itself against the US militarily, so it would need to adopt one or both of the other policies.

 

No. If US invades Canada and takes it over, we get a Republic, Free Speech, Freer Trade and a Currency Union. We win. Why stop that?

[-1=e^ipi]

8 hours ago, Queenmandy85 said:

As a Christian, I have a lot more faith in a leader elected by God.

 

God aint real.

 

8 hours ago, Queenmandy85 said:

While all US Presidents have been men, among our greatest Sovereigns three of them have been women.

 

So, according to you, something a person is born with (their sex) somehow justifies having a society where the head of state is determined by birthright instead of by merit...

 

Birthright justifies more birthright. Monarchist insanity gets crazier and crazier.

 

[paxamericana]

2 hours ago, Jimwd said:

Putin’s goal is to destroy NATO, so of course trump is trying. Just following orders,

Yeah but why can't canada help us follow said order even better. Oh wait i think Justin is doing that by not committing more defense spending on nato.

What undermine nato more, words or lack of real commitment? 

Sounds like Canada and other nato deadbeat are doing putins job for him.

The worse offender is germany. Funding russians with their energy dependency and lack of spending.

If anything you should be thanking trump for raising these alarm bells.

http://www.newsweek.com/trudeau-defies-trump-nato-summit-canada-refuses-increase-defense-spending-1017475

Edited July 15, 2018 by paxrom

[Bonam]

28 minutes ago, -1=e^ipi said:

So, according to you, something a person is born with (their sex) somehow justifies having a society where the head of state is determined by birthright instead of by merit..

If the Queen/King had real power, this would be a problem, but given that they are mostly a figurehead and perform mostly ceremonial duties, while the real governing decisions are performed by elected officials, I don't see it as a problem. The advantages of the monarchy are simple: a tie to past history and tradition, revenue and publicity associated with interest in the royal family, and the simplicity of not messing with what isn't broken. Western nations that include a symbolic monarchy including Canada, the UK, Australia, New Zealand, Norway, Sweden, Denmark, the Netherlands, and Belgium are among the most well governed nations out of them all (regardless of if this is because of, despite of, or unaffected by the presence of monarchy). So why not? 

On a side note, what system allows a head of state to be determined by "merit"? Certainly not presidential democracy, which gets to pick the best liars out of the worst dregs of society who have the urge to be that vilest of all things, politicians. 

Edited July 14, 2018 by Bonam

[-1=e^ipi]

Having a violation of equality under the law (monarchy) normalizes the violation of equality under the law and helps to justify other violations of equality under the law (such as circumcision double standards, race/sex based hiring practices, etc.). In addition, it is a violation of secularism (the queen is the head of the Anglican church), thus the continuation of the monarchy normalizes violations of secularism and helps to justify other violations such as funding the catholic church via catholic schools, blasphemy or religious hate speech laws, funding the Aga Khan with tax payer money, having the crucifix in the national assembly of quebec, and having god in our anthem and charter. Furthermore, having a monarchy helps make the narrative of the far left, that we live in a white supremacist capitalist patriarchy, more believable and therefore allows them to more easily take power.

Edited July 14, 2018 by -1=e^ipi

[-1=e^ipi]

11 minutes ago, Bonam said:

On a side note, what system allows a head of state to be determined by "merit"? Certainly not presidential democracy, which gets to pick the best liars out of the worst dregs of society who have the urge to be that vilest of all things, politicians. 

 

Better than birthright.

[paxamericana]

41 minutes ago, Bonam said:

On a side note, what system allows a head of state to be determined by "merit"? Certainly not presidential democracy, which gets to pick the best liars out of the worst dregs of society who have the urge to be that vilest of all things, politicians. 

"Democracy is the worst form of government, except for all the others" -Churchill 

[Bonam]

3 hours ago, -1=e^ipi said:

Having a violation of equality under the law (monarchy) normalizes the violation of equality under the law and helps to justify other violations of equality under the law (such as circumcision double standards, race/sex based hiring practices, etc.). In addition, it is a violation of secularism (the queen is the head of the Anglican church), thus the continuation of the monarchy normalizes violations of secularism and helps to justify other violations such as funding the catholic church via catholic schools, blasphemy or religious hate speech laws, funding the Aga Khan with tax payer money, having the crucifix in the national assembly of quebec, and having god in our anthem and charter. Furthermore, having a monarchy helps make the narrative of the far left, that we live in a white supremacist capitalist patriarchy, more believable and therefore allows them to more easily take power.

Meh I don't buy it. Being born the son or daughter of royalty confers no greater advantage than being born the son of daughter of other very wealthy parents. In fact, it's probably crappier, you get the spotlight for life whether you want it or not whereas many sons or daughters of billionaires can enjoy their wealth with relatively little fanfare if they so choose. Violations of equality under the law, secularism, etc are all just as prevalent (if not more) in non-monarchist presidential republics, like the US. The US president gets to arbitrarily pardon whoever the heck he wants, for any reason.

I understand that in your mind, violating a certain principle once (by having a monarchy) means that principle is open to violation all over the place. But lets get out of theory and back to practice for a moment. Do you see any correlation in the real world between reduced secularism and reduced equality under the law in western monarchies as compared to western republics? 

[Bonam]

3 hours ago, paxrom said:

"Democracy is the worst form of government, except for all the others" -Churchill 

Except for all the others that have been tried so far, sure. Just as democracy superseded old forms of government that were no longer suitable in the 20th century, I wonder if democracy is becoming unsuitable for properly governing a country in the 21st century. While western democracies still offer more personal freedom than any existing alternatives (though this gap is quickly diminishing due to social media thought police), their governments are trapped in paralysis and gridlock that prevents meaningful progress and common sense improvements from being carried out.

For example, in the US, almost everyone agrees on infrastructure... ask Democrats or Republicans or independents, almost all will tell you that investing in repairing existing infrastructure and building more newer better infrastructure is something they support. And yet essentially nothing has happened on this front for decades. Roads and bridges are crumbling and aging and becoming more congested, but essentially nothing is being done. Meanwhile, developing countries with far less money, expertise, experience, or technology are building out vast new systems of infrastructure, which are in many cases more advanced.

Hopefully some form of government can be devised that is able to preserve personal liberty as envisioned by classical liberal ideals while eliminating the tendency towards paralysis and partisanship that comes with large representative democracies. 

[bush_cheney2004]

3 hours ago, Bonam said:

....For example, in the US, almost everyone agrees on infrastructure... ask Democrats or Republicans or independents, almost all will tell you that investing in repairing existing infrastructure and building more newer better infrastructure is something they support. And yet essentially nothing has happened on this front for decades.

 

Not true...many states have infrastructure projects completed or in progress in the past two decades.   This includes major and minor bridge replacements, new bridge spans, light rail in several cities, airport expansions, Boston's Big Dig tunnel project, etc. ...even sports stadiums...concurrent with maintenance of existing highway infrastructure.

https://www.curbed.com/2018/1/18/16898246/transportation-construction-projects-biggest-us-2018

U.S. federal spending can be roughly divided between discretionary and non-discretionary budget items, with the latter being larger.    U.S. defense spending is discretionary, which includes contributions to NATO.    Other NATO members would be alarmed if the U.S. shifted spending away from defense/NATO to more infrastructure or the social welfare state as in Europe.  

Edited July 15, 2018 by bush_cheney2004

[paxamericana]

3 hours ago, Bonam said:

While western democracies still offer more personal freedom than any existing alternatives (though this gap is quickly diminishing due to social media thought police), their governments are trapped in paralysis and gridlock that prevents meaningful progress and common sense improvements from being carried out.

I think the important point is to have good feedback. A governing system needs this feedback mechanism and democracy definitely has a good feedback mechanism built in. Second you also need some sort of checks and balance so one governing body does not become a over bearing. I think your main criticism of democracy is just really bureaucracy and not so much democracy as an ideal.  Bureaucracy plague all form of government, which by definition has to have bureaucracy. Some faster, some slower which is why you have the responsibility broken up into three governing bodies. 

[Charles Anthony]

Folks,

Please avoid derailing the thread discussion.

[Jimwd]

20 hours ago, paxrom said:

Yeah but why can't canada help us follow said order even better. Oh wait i think Justin is doing that by not committing more defense spending on nato.

What undermine nato more, words or lack of real commitment? 

Sounds like Canada and other nato deadbeat are doing putins job for him.

The worse offender is germany. Funding russians with their energy dependency and lack of spending.

If anything you should be thanking trump for raising these alarm bells.

http://www.newsweek.com/trudeau-defies-trump-nato-summit-canada-refuses-increase-defense-spending-1017475

What undermines nato more?

 

trump being compromised by Russia .....

[Queenmandy85]

An interesting scenario inspired by Wasington Week on PBS. If President Trump withdraws from NATO, would he then switch sides and form an alliance with Russia? If that were to happen, what should Canada do?

It may sound far fetched, but then, for many of us, so was President Trump's election victory, even among some of his supporters

Edited July 16, 2018 by Queenmandy85

[bush_cheney2004]

3 hours ago, Queenmandy85 said:

An interesting scenario inspired by Wasington Week on PBS. If President Trump withdraws from NATO, would he then switch sides and form an alliance with Russia? If that were to happen, what should Canada do?

 

What did Canada do when France effectively left NATO in 1966 ?

Canada should do whatever is in Canada's best interest, regardless of what Trump or the USA does.

 

Quote

It may sound far fetched, but then, for many of us, so was President Trump's election victory, even among some of his supporters

 

Since NATO was a U.S. led creation, leaving is extremely unlikely.    Trump is just making unfounded threats to light a fire under the asses of NATO deadbeats.

[paxamericana]

5 hours ago, Queenmandy85 said:

An interesting scenario inspired by Wasington Week on PBS. If President Trump withdraws from NATO, would he then switch sides and form an alliance with Russia? If that were to happen, what should Canada do?

It may sound far fetched, but then, for many of us, so was President Trump's election victory, even among some of his supporters

Our only objective with Russia is the middle east and Afghanistan. Other than that, they are competitors. If Russia however did magically give up its claim of Ukraine and decides to join NATO then that would be one step closer to a one world order. China would be all that is left but even then China is slowly westernizing. This is why the US did not try to stop China's rise. We see a democratic China, one that is fully integrated with the rule based order would be much more beneficial to the world. 

[Queenmandy85]

7 hours ago, paxrom said:

Our only objective with Russia is the middle east and Afghanistan. Other than that, they are competitors. If Russia however did magically give up its claim of Ukraine and decides to join NATO then that would be one step closer to a one world order. China would be all that is left but even then China is slowly westernizing. This is why the US did not try to stop China's rise. We see a democratic China, one that is fully integrated with the rule based order would be much more beneficial to the world. 

Are you a supporter of the New World Order?

[paxamericana]

21 minutes ago, Queenmandy85 said:

Are you a supporter of the New World Order?

The new world order is nothing new. It is just a rule based order established since ww2. We need this rule based order to avoid another major conflict and keep the peace. China and Russia thinks it can bully its neighbor because they are bigger and are therefore more important. What the US try to do is bring both countries back into compliance and play by the rules. One in which it should be fair for all. 

I'm a die hard american I support what ever is in America's interest. Maintaining world peace is just a subset of interest that America has.

Edited July 16, 2018 by paxrom

[eyeball]

32 minutes ago, paxrom said:

The new world order is nothing new. 

Sure, just don't call it a one world government or Earth directorate - then it sounds scary.

Maybe pink helicopters....naw that would make it even more terrifying.

[Queenmandy85]

38 minutes ago, paxrom said:

China and Russia thinks it can bully its neighbor because they are bigger and are therefore more important.

Lately, some Canadians and Mexicans would inclde the US in that group.

[paxamericana]

8 minutes ago, Queenmandy85 said:

Lately, some Canadians and Mexicans would inclde the US in that group.

We are way more fair, we bully everyone. >_<

[turningrite]

On 7/14/2018 at 1:20 PM, Machjo said:

There are basically three ways for a country to deter another country: militarily (by having a more powerful military force), economically (by making themselves economically interdependent so that to attack it would hurt the attacker's economy itself), and culturally (by allowing freer movement, international marriages, etc. so that an attack on that country would be an attack on the attacking country's own families).

If Canada leaves NATO, it clearly could not defend itself against the US militarily, so it would need to adopt one or both of the other policies. For example, Canada could adopt a policy of unilateral free trade with the US while still negotiating common product standards with it and maybe even allowing US citizens to study, work, and do business in Canada visa-free.

Such a policy would encourage extreme economic and cultural integration between the two states so as to make it difficult for the US to attack Canada without hurting itself in the process.

It's either that or Canada bankrupts itself through military spending.

Many would argue that we've pursued policies of extreme economic and cultural integration without getting much benefit. I agree that militarily Canada simply can't defend itself against its only realistic opponent, the U.S., so, what else can be done? Trump's approach seems to be to tell us we must simply follow his orders.

Edited July 17, 2018 by turningrite

[Machjo]

2 hours ago, turningrite said:

Many would argue that we've pursued policies of extreme economic and cultural integration without getting much benefit. I agree that militarily Canada simply can't defend itself against its only realistic opponent, the U.S., so, what else can be done? Trump's approach seems to be to tell us we must simply follow his orders.

True. But if we can make ourselves as economically and culturally integrated as possible into the North American economy, the US military would soon become powerless against us. After all, I can't imagine many Americans appreciating the US military bombing their daughters and sons-in-law to death or US businesses appreciating the US military bombing their business partners' to the ground.

Edited July 17, 2018 by Machjo

[paxamericana]

1 minute ago, Machjo said:

True. But if we can make ourselves as economically and culturally integrated as possible into the North American economy, the US military would soon become powerless against us. After all, I can't imagine many Americans appreciating the US military bombing their daughters and suns-in-law to death or US businesses appreciating the US military bombing their business partners' to the ground.

Thats right Canada join the dark side.

[Machjo]

In many respects, Singapore has adopted just such a policy. Neighbouring states may have more powerful military forces, but with so many foreign nationals working in Singapore, any attack on Singapore would be an attack on the attacking state's own people.