Jump to content

US, UK, Australia in security pact against China. Canada left out


Argus

Recommended Posts

After WWII people in Europe generally liked Canada and cheered for it. Fast forward 70 years (in the timescale of ever-ruling bureaucracy, a trifle interval) and we here still genuinely believe (or like to and refuse to admit how naive it is) that something of real, convertible value can be gotten for a) smiley face b) general goodness and c) polite and thoughtful chat. Like that good chatty uncle you sometimes get tired of, politely or not so much, depending on occasion. Good luck to us, starting from that position in this century. By the time real heat arrives how would we know that still capable of anything real?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

As long as we remain dependent on the US as our main export market, China for cheap imports, and rely on the US for military protection, we remain vulnerable to tariffs and manipulation, and our sovereignty is compromised. Biden is a two-faced double dealer, as we see in his security deal with Australia, which has screwed over France, a supposed close ally of the US, and has left Canada out of the loop.  Biden’s US has extended the land border closure to Canadians.   I’m not going to try to explain this away with weak arguments about a Delta variant or not wanting to offend Mexico.  The US could safely allow vaccinated tourists to enter the US today.

Biden is unscientific and manipulative.  Trump was more honest when he told countries he was putting the screws to them, and Trump mistreated Canada too.  The learning from all of this is that Canada needs to form new partnerships and stop counting on the US.  We will sell our Florida property, buy vacation property in Canada, and when we want heat in winter, we’ll start spending our money in places like Cuba, Belize, Costa Rica, Bahamas, etc.   I’m tired of rules appearing out of nowhere for no clear rationale.  We can import our citrus from Central and South America and use greenhouses.

If we spend the billions today to build or buy the best military aircraft and maintain enough of an arsenal to inflict serious damage on any potential attackers, we can defend our country on our own.  Sure the US can take us, but then they have to manage us, including Quebec, Indigenous, and all the competing interests.  I’m glad we’re maintaining good relations with the UK and EU, Japan, India, and South American countries   I’m glad we forged trade deals with S America and Europe. Multilateralism protects us, as long as we maintain our sovereignty and don’t delegate it to the UN, US, China, or anyone.  Trudeau has been so weak in this regard.  We need a PM who stands up for Canadian interests and doesn’t try to shame Canada for historic imperfections, especially when Canada has done so much very well.

 

Edited by Zeitgeist
Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 hours ago, blackbird said:

Ardern opposes nuclear submarines if I am correct.  Is she some kind of pacifist?  Not a rational position to take in this polarized world where the west is under serious threat from Russia, China, Iran, and N. Korea.

Refer to #4. There is no war with China. If war with China or Russia occurs, it will be a global nuclear exchange.

What exactly, is the threat that China and Russia present? 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

There's a simpler word for that: freeloaders. China is increasingly showing trends to dominance in the South Pacific, around Taiwan, suppression of democracy in Hong Kong, activity in South China See. Clearly, this kind of problems cannot be solved with smiling diplomacy, general goodness and nicely inclusive talking. So indeed why would anyone be interested?

A simple question immediately clarifies the matter: how long would independent New Zealand last if it weren't for those ugly submarines?

Edited by myata
Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 hours ago, Zeitgeist said:

We import tremendously from China.  It’s misleading to say they’re are second largest trading partner because the money and labour flow mostly to China.

I actually think we need to radically reverse this   Slam the door on all of it   Close the embassy, give up the billions in soy and other crops that we sell to China, and slap tariffs on Chinese goods unless they meet comparable standards to ours.  It’s better to take a hit on our exports and repatriate jobs and money.  It’s also better to kick out all the Chinese government influencers.  There’s value in an international trade deal that requires that certain labour and environmental standards are met to have free trade.  

 

I agree with most of what you say, but the U.S. is actually our biggest trading partner.  Cutting out China will cause a major hit on the Canadian economy, but I don't see any other way to get rid of their Marxist influence.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Queenmandy85 said:

Refer to #4. There is no war with China. If war with China or Russia occurs, it will be a global nuclear exchange.

What exactly, is the threat that China and Russia present? 

I can't explain it properly on here.  Go to Amazon and download or purchase the book "Hidden Hand:  Exposing How the Chinese Communist Party is Reshaping the World".  If you think the growing power of China and the Russia and China alliance is not a threat to the west, you are living in la la land.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I get the feeling PM Ardern of N.Z. and Trudeau of Canada think their countries can act like some kind of neutral brokers in the world in the face of a gigantic struggle going on between the superpowers.  On the western democracies, led by the America and the other side led by the totalitarian Communist of Russia, China, N. Korea.  Trudeau and Ardern live in some kind of la la land, not the real world.  These Communist super powers don't give a hoot about little countries like N.Z. and Canada.  They will be swallowed up by the growing international influence of global authoritarianism and Marxism.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, blackbird said:

I get the feeling PM Ardern of N.Z. and Trudeau of Canada think their countries can act like some kind of neutral brokers in the world in the face of a gigantic struggle going on between the superpowers.  On the western democracies, led by the America and the other side led by the totalitarian Communist of Russia, China, N. Korea.  Trudeau and Ardern live in some kind of la la land, not the real world.  These Communist super powers don't give a hoot about little countries like N.Z. and Canada.  They will be swallowed up by the growing international influence of global authoritarianism and Marxism.

Agreed and I think that Trudeau’s naïveté and Canadians’ complaisance is making us too susceptible to threats to the quality of life we enjoy, including living standards and freedom.  We struggle to maintain liberal-democracy without a strong conservative pushback against the new managed economy global reset mindset that is the consensus of the dominant Canadian parties.  We can’t expect a seat at the big boy table for geopolitical influence with a diminished military and leaders who are seen as all talk.  How do you make Canadians wake up to the fact that in order have policies that serve national interests in the long term, you can’t be totally beholden to foreign powers for defence and business?  I get the progressive argument that money is better spent on lifting people out of poverty than buying military hardware, but military heft protects the business interests and trade policies that boost tax revenues.

Also, by farming out manufacturing to China for the short-term affordability of goods we are losing our capacity to build a wide range of products.  Without that capacity it’s much harder to close the drawbridge in times of crisis.  If those jobs are going automated we should be producing the machines and collecting the profits.

The progressives forget this, just as they don’t understand that shutting down resource development and oil production just shifts the supply to countries like Saudi Arabia and Russia.  Biden has shown his hypocrisy on shutting down pipelines and fighting greenhouse gas emissions.  He is committing the US to trucking in oil supply shipped in from less democratic countries, and Trudeau assents with a smile.

Edited by Zeitgeist
  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, Queenmandy85 said:

Refer to #4. There is no war with China. If war with China or Russia occurs, it will be a global nuclear exchange.

What exactly, is the threat that China and Russia present? 

Never heard of the Cold War it would seem. The US and Soviet Union fought many proxy wars without resorting to nuclear weapons.

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Anyone who believes diplomacy is "nice" needs to bone up on their history. China is holding two Canadian hostages and that puts Canada at the top of the list of nations who have a hostile relationship with China. The obvious solution is to hit them with the 2nd and 5th Canadian Army Groups, three Pacific RCN fleets and the 19th Airforce. There are three drawbacks to this course of action. We are a bit deficient Army group, Airforce and Navy wise. Canada has never had a viable peace-time military because Canadians don't want it. Even in 1944, the Canadian Army was over-stretched. Sending an attacking force across the Pacific is logistically impossible and a bit of trivia to consider; if the Chinese army marched 10 abreast past a reviewing stand, they would keep coming forever. The only military solution is a massive nuclear strike , bringing up that whole mutually assured destruction thing.

When the two Michaels appeared in court, dozens of ambassadors from other nations stood shoulder-to- shoulder with Canada in protest. It is unlikely the hostages will be released until Ms. Meng Wanzhou finishes her full sentence in the USA.  The proposal made on this forum that we stand up to China must be tempered with the consequences that will be visited on Mr. Spavor and Mr. Kovrig. Of course, if anyone thinks that doesn't matter, I'm sure these hostages would be happy to trade places with these armchair foreign ministers.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Aristides said:

Never heard of the Cold War it would seem. The US and Soviet Union fought many proxy wars without resorting to nuclear weapons.

So, you believe that if China began sinking US ships, or the UK sent the Royal Marines into Hong Kong, it would not escalate into a nuclear war? I refer you to the Cuba missile crisis. The US Navy was about to sink a Soviet ship and it was only the quick thinking by Robert Kennedy and the courage of Nikita Khrushchev that saved the world. In 1964, the use of nuclear weapons against North Viet Nam was proposed and the use of nuclear weapons was proposed against North Korea and China in 1953.

The whole point of nuclear weapons is to limit war.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 minutes ago, Queenmandy85 said:

must be tempered with the consequences that will be visited on Mr. Spavor and Mr. Kovrig. Of course, if anyone thinks that doesn't matter, I'm sure these hostages would be happy to trade places with these armchair foreign ministers.

What a great idea given that thanks to the immigration policy thousand if not millions (soon) of Canadian citizens visit China on a regular basis. Sure diplomacy would help... till not so gentle knock on the door. If still excited about UN and diplomacy just look at Hong Kong.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, Queenmandy85 said:

So, you believe that if China began sinking US ships, or the UK sent the Royal Marines into Hong Kong, it would not escalate into a nuclear war? I refer you to the Cuba missile crisis. The US Navy was about to sink a Soviet ship and it was only the quick thinking by Robert Kennedy and the courage of Nikita Khrushchev that saved the world. In 1964, the use of nuclear weapons against North Viet Nam was proposed and the use of nuclear weapons was proposed against North Korea and China in 1953.

The whole point of nuclear weapons is to limit war.

 

That's why China won't sink US ships and why nukes weren't used in Viet Nam. McArthur wanted to nuke North Korea too.  MAD still applies.

Khrushchev cratered. The Soviets were badly outgunned, Kennedy knew it and called his bluff.

Edited by Aristides
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Aristides said:

The Soviets were badly outgunned, Kennedy knew it and called his bluff.

You don't seem to have the concept of nuclear war. "Out gunned" is an irrelevant term. As President Kennedy said at the time, (in a nuclear war)" the fruits of victory would be ashes in our mouth."  If the US sank that Soviet ship, the USA, Canada, and the USSR would have been destroyed within 24 hours. 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

24 minutes ago, Aristides said:

That's why China won't sink US ships and why nukes weren't used in Viet Nam. MAD still applies.

That's why diplomacy is still and always will be the best option. 

It is one thing to be disgusted by the action of China but it is better than living in fear. If you depend on military might to solve your problems, sooner or later you will have to use it. The US has had dismal results using military force, but they have had much better results using diplomacy.

Xi is a bastard, but so are many leaders we have dealings with. Xi is a saint compared with Mao.

The main theoretical threat to Canada is from the United States. They have the greatest military force the history of the world and we have a long undefended border. Fortunately, they have not tried to invade us since the civil war. They were repelled every time they tried but that was then.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, Queenmandy85 said:

That's why diplomacy is still and always will be the best option. 

It is one thing to be disgusted by the action of China but it is better than living in fear. If you depend on military might to solve your problems, sooner or later you will have to use it. The US has had dismal results using military force, but they have had much better results using diplomacy.

Xi is a bastard, but so are many leaders we have dealings with. Xi is a saint compared with Mao.

The main theoretical threat to Canada is from the United States. They have the greatest military force the history of the world and we have a long undefended border. Fortunately, they have not tried to invade us since the civil war. They were repelled every time they tried but that was then.

Australia has no choice but to build up its capability because they have no big brother next door to look after them. They don't have to be able to defeat China, just prickly enough to not be worth China's trouble. You can beat us but it will really cost you. That's the kind of military Canada should be aspiring too.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Queenmandy85 said:

That's why diplomacy is still and always will be the best option. 

It is one thing to be disgusted by the action of China but it is better than living in fear. If you depend on military might to solve your problems, sooner or later you will have to use it. The US has had dismal results using military force, but they have had much better results using diplomacy.

Xi is a bastard, but so are many leaders we have dealings with. Xi is a saint compared with Mao.

The main theoretical threat to Canada is from the United States. They have the greatest military force the history of the world and we have a long undefended border. Fortunately, they have not tried to invade us since the civil war. They were repelled every time they tried but that was then.

There is no threat from the U.S.  That is Marxist nonsense.  You have been conned by the leftists.  Time to do some reading of what China is doing in the west.  The west must have military might and sufficient modern military technology to act as a deterrent.  Having that deterrent is what protects us, not talk.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

A. Imagine the pro-democracy faction, that had support of the majority of population won election and formed the government of Hong Kong. Question: how would diplomacy help it against China's rewriting the law and forcing it on the territory?

B. Same question, in some hypothetical future, military exercises near Pacific coast of Canada (now: Taiwan and South China See) with US looking the other way because Canada decided to rely on diplomacy (and if it was the case, I couldn't be blaming them). Ironic how Trump was so wrong to seek understanding with Putin, but makes perfect sense, to some, to play diplomacy pantomime with China. But of course China knows very well the real worth of everybody it's dealing with and wouldn't fall for general niceties. Recall our great PM's last visit to the country.

By the way this is just another case of a little processing organ coming to believe itself to be the cause of all things in the Universe. In reality though diplomacy solves no problems - it's only a frame, a language in which solutions achieved by other means are expressed and written. If China wanted New Zealand and with no ugly Aukus submarines around, good luck praying to diplomacy or Santa Claus, Buddah etc with the same outcome.

Edited by myata
Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 minutes ago, blackbird said:

There is no threat from the U.S.  That is Marxist nonsense.  You have been conned by the leftists.  Time to do some reading of what China is doing in the west.  The west must have military might and sufficient modern military technology to act as a deterrent.  Having that deterrent is what protects us, not talk.

You misunderstood. The US is the only nation that could invade Canada, if it wanted to. They have invaded us three times and been repelled every time. Since 1940, they have not shown any intension of doing so. We are lucky in that the American people are far greater than their governments.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

26 minutes ago, myata said:
26 minutes ago, myata said:

A. Imagine the pro-democracy faction, that had support of the majority of population won election and formed the government of Hong Kong. Question: how would diplomacy help it against China's rewriting the law and forcing it on the territory?

 

What do you propose as an alternative? Canadians historically do not want a viable military. Look at the mutiny in Terrace,BC in 1944 when conscripted soldiers were told they would be send overseas. Up until then, if you were conscripted, you were not sent overseas. After Ralston was fired, McNaughton could not get enough Canadians to volunteer and the Canadian Army in Europe was in dire peril. Prime Minister MacKenzie King claimed the Generals were threatening to overthrow the government so he ordered conscripts to be sent overseas. (They actually threatened to resign) 

So, with that in mind, what do you propose as an alternative to diplomacy? I am all in favour of having a viable military force but nobody else does. Most Canadians neither want to serve, nor pay for it. That is fact.

Edited by Queenmandy85
Link to comment
Share on other sites

40 minutes ago, blackbird said:

There is no threat from the U.S.  That is Marxist nonsense.

No, it is pragmatic. All it would take is a change in administration with a new government that advocates manifest destiny and we have a problem. The US could complete the annexation in 36 hours. I believe there is a possibility we could drive them out but it would be long, cruel and bloody. It would be at that point that Canadians would become militaristic and resurrect that nasty streak the Germans discovered in the Great War.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

57 minutes ago, Queenmandy85 said:

So, with that in mind, what do you propose as an alternative to diplomacy? I am all in favour of having a viable military force but nobody else does. Most Canadians neither want to serve, nor pay for it. That is fact.

That answer is long time answered by the evolution but we forgot or wouldn't want to know: if a species wouldn't, couldn't etc run as fast as required by the environment they may go extinct. And there's nowhere to explain why they couldn't and no appeals.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Unfortunately, your content contains terms that we do not allow. Please edit your content to remove the highlighted words below.
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

×
×
  • Create New...