Trudeau's smug, shallow stupidity on stage again

[Dougie93]

1 minute ago, ProudConservative said:

Canada is a slap on the wrist country. I know a guy in highschool who stabed someone to death at 17. He only spent 5 months in Juvi, and they put him in our school.

Doesn't protect you from a lawsuit,  in fact many civil laws are stricter in Canada than in America, the libel laws are much stricter here, much easier to win a libel case in Canada.

[Guest ProudConservative]

3 minutes ago, Dougie93 said:

Doesn't protect you from a lawsuit,  in fact many civil laws are stricter in Canada than in America, the libel laws are much stricter here, much easier to win a libel case in Canada.

Maybe you're right. I just don't think Oprah would have a problem in Canada... Only in the states, do they harrase celebrities for their opinions.

Edited December 7, 2019 by ProudConservative

[Yzermandius19]

Brandenburg v. Ohio FTW. America is the only country with real free speech.

[Dougie93]

Just now, ProudConservative said:

Maybe you're right.

Canadian laws are kind of archaic, there's even a criminal libel statute on the books in Canada.

[Guest ProudConservative]

1 minute ago, Dougie93 said:

Canadian laws are kind of archaic, there's even a criminal libel statute on the books in Canada.

I just hate lawyers... They're a bunch of parasites to me. America is overun by lawyers.

Edited December 7, 2019 by ProudConservative

[Dougie93]

1 minute ago, ProudConservative said:

I just hate lawyers... They're a bunch of parasites to me. America is overun by lawyers.

I like my lawyers so long as they win.

[Argus]

11 hours ago, ProudConservative said:

They're both clowns. I like Putin. He's the best leader in the world right now.

Also a mass murderer.

[Zeitgeist]

12 hours ago, Dougie93 said:

That's what America is saying, Canadians just haven't considered the ramifications of America reining in its largess to deal with debt servicing.

Canadians is of course free to run to their new overlords in Beijing, ask Hong Kong how that goes.

Hang on a minute.  Yes we benefit from US defence, but let’s get real, the US controls the Panama Canal, and indirectly the Suez, and all major shipping channels.  It tilts the geopolitical world to its benefit.  Because of its military power and the fact that commodities are priced in US dollars, it has a major hedge against deflation and devaluation of the US dollar.  US military supremacy is a choice, one that benefits the US yet is still excessive.  Does the US need Canada to be military power? Not really.  The US  uses Canada as the kinder, gentler PR arm of the alliance.  Canada must boost military contra but in a targeted way.  At this point it’s mainly about maintaining and developing expertise that is transferable to the civilian economy and for diplomatic purposes, to be taken seriously and have a seat at the table, especially with this US president, a rising China, and a more aggressive Russia.  Trudeau is more concerned with catering to special interests than the real economy. 

[Dougie93]

2 minutes ago, Zeitgeist said:

Hang on a minute.  Yes we benefit from US defence, but let’s get real, the US controls the Panama Canal, and indirectly the Suez, and all major shipping channels.  It tilts the geopolitical world to its benefit.  Because of its military power and the fact that commodities are priced in US dollars, it has a major hedge against deflation and devaluation of the US dollar.  US military supremacy is a choice, one that benefits the US yet is still excessive.  Does the US need Canada to be military power? Not really.  The US  uses Canada as the kinder, gentler PR arm of the alliance.  Canada must boost military contra but in a targeted way.  At this point it’s mainly about maintaining and developing expertise that is transferable to the civilian economy and for diplomatic purposes, to be taken seriously and have a seat at the table, especially with this US president, a rising China, and a more aggressive Russia.  Trudeau is more concerned with catering to special interests than the real economy. 

Canada is no longer a valued partner. Americans don't care about NATO anymore. 

Americans have shifted to bilateral Non NATO Military Allies (NNMA) like Australia

Now notoriously incompetent and free riding Canada is getting frozen out already.

[Dougie93]

I mean, thirty years ago, Canada and Australia were military equals, but they have gone in oppisite directions now.

While Canada struggles to build any actual warships at all,  Australia has already built two aircraft carriers.

[Dougie93]

Australia is the Middle Power, Canada has simply become Mexico North.

[Zeitgeist]

1 hour ago, Dougie93 said:

I mean, thirty years ago, Canada and Australia were military equals, but they have gone in oppisite directions now.

While Canada struggles to build any actual warships at all,  Australia has already built two aircraft carriers.

Australia has a different geopolitical reality being alone in the South Pacific.  Also the cost of living in Australia is high. We get a lot of Aussies and Kiwis moving here.  Take the US out of NATO and Canada’s contribution looks very average and is on the upper end.  Anyway, NATO has been mostly about supporting US adventures and protecting the US from its enemies.  Which country drew on NATO Article 5?  the US after it was attacked on 9/11.  Mostly NATO is about US defence and providing allied support for US foreign policy.  We’re grateful for the defence support and appreciate the alliance.    I’m not even sure the US would keep its NATO commitments though. 

[Argus]

7 minutes ago, Zeitgeist said:

Australia has a different geopolitical reality being alone in the South Pacific.  Also the cost of living in Australia is high. We get a lot of Aussies and Kiwis moving here.  Take the US out of NATO and Canada’s contribution looks very average and is on the upper end. 

Maybe what we SPEND is on the upper end. But the actual size and capability of our forces is not because most of that money is wasted or spent on high salaries and benefits non-western countries do not have to pay.

[Dougie93]

17 minutes ago, Zeitgeist said:

   I’m not even sure the US would keep its NATO commitments though. 

The Washington Treaty binds America to no particular commitments.

Article V does not stipulate what any member must provide in response to an attack, it is entirely at their discretion, to protect America most of all.

The Commander-in-Chief could deem to respond on a broad spectrum, from all out thermonuclear war at one end, to a strongly worded letter of protest at the other.

Most layman have simply never read the treaty, so they are not aware.

 

[Cannucklehead]

20 minutes ago, Dougie93 said:

The Washington Treaty binds America to no particular commitments.

Article V does not stipulate what any member must provide in response to an attack, it is entirely at their discretion, to protect America most of all.

The Commander-in-Chief could deem to respond on a broad spectrum, from all out thermonuclear war at one end, to a strongly worded letter of protest at the other.

Most layman have simply never read the treaty, so they are not aware.

 

And yet the u.s. is the only country in history to have invoked article 5, one day after a terrorist attack.  

 

[bush_cheney2004]

9 minutes ago, Cannucklehead said:

And yet the u.s. is the only country in history to have invoked article 5, one day after a terrorist attack.  

 

 

Utter nonsense...as NATO did not and could not do so until the source of the attack was confirmed in October 2001.

https://www.rferl.org/a/1097584.html

[Dougie93]

13 minutes ago, Cannucklehead said:

And yet the u.s. is the only country in history to have invoked article 5, one day after a terrorist attack.  

 

And America provided the vast majority of the forces and all the logistics, to include supporting Canada's tiny commitment of just three rifle companies,

Edited December 7, 2019 by Dougie93

[Cannucklehead]

3 minutes ago, bush_cheney2004 said:

 

Utter nonsense...as NATO did not and could not do so until the source of the attack was confirmed in October 2001.

https://www.rferl.org/a/1097584.html

https://www.nato.int/docu/pr/2001/p01-124e.htm

I think I just heard an ostrich.  

[bush_cheney2004]

53 minutes ago, Zeitgeist said:

...  We’re grateful for the defence support and appreciate the alliance.    I’m not even sure the US would keep its NATO commitments though. 

 

Why ?   If it's just for U.S. foreign policy, why would Canada be part of such an arrangement ?

NATO's war against Libya in 2011 was a French/British joint, not started by the U.S.

[Dougie93]

Canadians seem to have some sort of delusion that NATO exists as something other than an entirely American institution, run by America, for America.

[Dougie93]

8 minutes ago, bush_cheney2004 said:

 

Why ?   If it's just for U.S. foreign policy, why would Canada be part of such an arrangement ?

NATO's war against Libya in 2011 was a French/British joint, not started by the U.S.

The Europeans have their own alternative alliance, EUFOR,

While America can simply operate bilaterally with select countries through EUCOM

So there's no need for NATO anymore, its obsolete.

EUCOM with Poland and Romania is a really all the foothold America can make use of in Europe now.

[Cannucklehead]

I'd be more concerned about Tusk atm.  

Awful.  Even for someone like trump.  

[Dougie93]

Frankly the North Atlantic Security Zone is a US Navy role, there is no requirement for boots on the ground in Europe anymore.

The deterrence of the Russians is executed by silent war beneath waves, since about the 1970's

SOSUS. SSN. SSGN. SSBN.  UGM-133.  UGM-109.

King Dollar Rules The Waves.

[bush_cheney2004]

Trudeau is getting lots of (more) unwanted attention:

 

Quote

Justin Trudeau can't seem to stop ruining global summits ... nickname for the prime minister, “Little Potato,” entered Canada's political lexicon.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2019/12/05/justin-trudeau-cant-seem-stop-ruining-global-summits/

 

 

[Zeitgeist]

32 minutes ago, bush_cheney2004 said:

 

Why ?   If it's just for U.S. foreign policy, why would Canada be part of such an arrangement ?

NATO's war against Libya in 2011 was a French/British joint, not started by the U.S.

Usually if it’s in our allies’ interests it’s in our interests.  Usually.