Canada, NATO & Trump

[August1991]

Many Canadians (French, English, whatever) don't like Trump. Often, these English-Canadians don't like America - CBC, Atwood, NDP etc.

Yet these same Canadians think that NATO is a good thing. They want Ukraine to join NATO.

What if Trump (or someone like him -Nixon, Reagan...) is elected US President?

=====

To me, NATO was an arrangement to defeat the Soviet Union. As Reagan said, we won.

We no longer need NATO.

Nowadays, despite what Trump says, NATO is a way to make Canadians taxpayers buy military equipment made in the US.

 

Edited June 25, 2024 by August1991

[PIK]

NATO is a important group. Imo. Change the name if you want. And I don't care if the equipment comes from America, the forces need it. And what ever happen to the blue helmets, just put away and forgotten?

[August1991]

1 hour ago, PIK said:

NATO is a important group. Imo. Change the name if you want. And I don't care if the equipment comes from America, the forces need it. And what ever happen to the blue helmets, just put away and forgotten?

But the equipment is bought in America.

Trump claims that America pays. We don't buy. Membership in NATO forces us to buy from America.

 

[August1991]

5 minutes ago, August1991 said:

...

Trump claims that America pays. We don't buy. Membership in NATO forces us to buy from America.

 

Disagree. No need for NATO.

=====

Reagan won. Heck, you ultimately won in Vietnam.

[CdnFox]

18 minutes ago, August1991 said:

But the equipment is bought in America.

Trump claims that America pays. We don't buy. Membership in NATO forces us to buy from America.

 

No, it doesn't. We can buy from anyone. It makes sense in many respects to buy NATO Standard equipment but we are not required to. Most of the other countries in NATO make their own equipment. And we can certainly buy for many of them. We could buy german aA guns, british tanks and french fighters if we wanted. 

Right now we cannot defend our own nation. That's unacceptable. As a result we absolutely do need to be part of NATO. Wars happen and nature of whores a vacuum, so if there is an absence of power something will move to fill it.

Si vis paceum, para bellum.  It's as true today as it was then. 

 

[August1991]

1 minute ago, CdnFox said:

No, it doesn't. We can buy from anyone. It makes sense in many respects

....

 

The specs are American. Standard.

I was curious how Sweden and Finland joined NATO.

[CdnFox]

8 minutes ago, August1991 said:

The specs are American. Standard.

 

No, they are not. Ammo is often nato standard but that is not 'american', and the specifications of the planes, tanks rifles etc themselves are individual to the country. 

This is going to be another one of those things that you just continue to lie about despite knowing the truth isn't it. For some reason you've got it in your head this is important in the truth is not. Why are you like this?

[August1991]

12 minutes ago, CdnFox said:

...

This is going to be another one of those things that you just continue to lie about despite knowing the truth isn't it. For some reason you've got it in your head this is important in the truth is not. Why are you like this?

Lie? Let's agree to disagree.

====

To me, NATO is now a military organisation - an extension of the United States federal govt bureaucracy.

George Kennan had a different idea.

Edited June 26, 2024 by August1991

[CdnFox]

1 hour ago, August1991 said:

Lie? Let's agree to disagree

 

No, you are factually wrong. This isn't an opinion. This is extremely easy to verify. The main battle rifle of the British army is not the M16 or variance. The main battle tank is not in Abrams. The main fighter was not an eagle france is all different too. So is germany. In fact when we did used to own tanks we bought german tanks not American.

Even the missile systems are different. The anti-aircraft systems are different. They each have their own cruise missiles.

Like I said, the rifle ammunition may be the same because it pays to have the same ammo as your ally. Sweden used NATO military ammunition for their rifles long before they became part of NATO because it just makes sense. But there's no requirement

 

It is stupid to say that we Agree to disagree. You are demonstrably and verifiably and factually wrong. There is absolutely no requirement whatsoever to buy gear that is native standard or from any specific company or country. You're even free to make your own as we do with our armored fighting vehicles.

I don't know where you got the idea that all NATO allies have to buy from America but that is simply not true and in fact most don't

[August1991]

On 6/26/2024 at 1:55 AM, CdnFox said:

No, you are factually wrong. This isn't an opinion. This is extremely easy to verify.

...

You miss my point.

In the debate last night, Biden stated that the money was going to America.

 

[August1991]

Returning to my OP:

If Trump is elected in November 2024, should we remain part of NATO?

[CdnFox]

8 minutes ago, August1991 said:

You miss my point.

In the debate last night, Biden stated that the money was going to America.

 

American money is going to America. America is buying american weapons systems to give to Ukraine.

British money is mostly going to British weapons providers. Same with France.

In Canada we build our own reconnaissance Vehicles which we've been giving to Ukraine. The money to build those went to Canadian companies. When we gave them what was left of our leopard tanks those are tanks we bought from germany

I do not miss your point. You are simply wrong in believing that NATO buys all of its Weaponry from the US.

6 minutes ago, August1991 said:

Returning to my OP:

If Trump is elected in November 2024, should we remain part of NATO?

Why wouldn't we? You very clearly don't understand this issue very well. It might be best if you did a little more reading before bringing the questions forward.

[August1991]

Just now, CdnFox said:

American money is going to America.

....

Clueless.

By your logic (and Biden's), Americans should be building and dropping the bombs in the middle of the ocean.

As long as the money stays in America.

 

[CdnFox]

5 minutes ago, August1991 said:

Clueless.

 

You think americans are buying weapons from OTHER countries to give to ukraine?   

LOL - buddy, i assume clueless refers to yourself   the US buys US weapons made in the US with the money the US votes for Ukraine - that is what biden was talking about, 

Quote

By your logic (and Biden's), Americans should be building and dropping the bombs in the middle of the ocean.

Would they buy the bombs in the us? LOLOLOL     How do you get your pants on in the morning without help?

And its' not my logic.  It's biden's logic. It was BIDEN who said that at least the money being spent on ukraine benefits the us.   And his argument was that if we "give" a billion to ukraine, at least most of it stays in country so it's not like we just gave it away without any benefit at all.  

And he's right - the us buys us hardware, everyone else buys their own country's hardware (except us, we don't make much so we have to buy other people's).' 

Quote

As long as the money stays in America.

Well that's his argument.  The money stays in the us, creates us jobs and there fore is good.  You may disagree. I disagree.  But - that's his argument. 

YOUR argument is that everybody has to buy american. Which is simply false, period. 

[August1991]

14 minutes ago, CdnFox said:

....

And its' not my logic.  It's biden's logic. It was BIDEN who said that at least the money being spent on ukraine benefits the us.   And his argument was that if we "give" a billion to ukraine, at least most of it stays in country so it's not like we just gave it away without any benefit at all.  

And he's right - the us buys us hardware, everyone else buys their own country's hardware (except us, we don't make much so we have to buy other people's).' 

Well that's his argument.  The money stays in the us, creates us jobs and there fore is good.  You may disagree. I disagree.  But - that's his argument. 

....

Other people die. Suffer US bombs and hardware.

And this is good for your country? Your reputation?

=====

In various ways, Kennedy, Nixon, Reagan defeated the Soviets. For the good of us all.

What is happening now in the 2020s has a  potential for disaster, like 1914.  

 

 

[CdnFox]

1 hour ago, August1991 said:

Other people die. Suffer US bombs and hardware.

And? The US didn't start the war, the war is there regardless. 

Biden's stance is that it's in the best interest of the US and it's allies to provide the tools necessary for ukraine to fight the war.  Again, you may or may not agree with helping ukraine defend itself but that is their position. 

Quote

And this is good for your country? Your reputation?

They argue it is better than allowing russia to take the ukraine and that is a valid argument. Others may disagree but you can't say that an independent ukraine is a bad thing for the us. 

 

Quote

In various ways, Kennedy, Nixon, Reagan defeated the Soviets. For the good of us all.

You mean like when kennedy almost started a nuclear war during the cuban missile crisis after the bay of pigs fiasco?

Or perhaps you mean vietnam, where things almost escalated? 

This is far from the first time. 

Quote

What is happening now in the 2020s has a  potential for disaster, like 1914.  

 

Directions class directly or indirectly there is a chance of escalation. However, frequently when they don't clash there is a chance of escalation. Chamberlain avoided conflict, but that only led to further conflict. Allowing Russia to Annex Crimea peacefully did not lead to an end to Russian aggression.

So now a decision has to be made as to whether or not intervening or not intervening is more likely to lead to future aggression.

It's not as simple as " War Bad M'kay?" Congratulation can encourage future conflicts even faster than resistance.

[August1991]

3 hours ago, CdnFox said:

......

Directions class directly or indirectly there is a chance of escalation. However, frequently when they don't clash there is a chance of escalation. Chamberlain avoided conflict, but that only led to further conflict.

.....

Let me repeat.

This current conflict is NOT like the 1930s. If anything, it is like the Balkan Wars. Or maybe the Crimean War.

Despite what Bill O'Reilly, Anne Applebaum and Lindsay Graham say, we are not facing Hitler.

=====

Since 1991, we need a new structure of peace - or as Trudeau Snr wld say, on a besoin de contrepoids.

 

[August1991]

Returning to my OP, if Trump is elected in November 2024 - and he's another Hitler - should Canada remain part of NATO?

[betsy]

1 hour ago, August1991 said:

Returning to my OP, if Trump is elected in November 2024 - and he's another Hitler - should Canada remain part of NATO?

 

Another "Hitler?"   The spawn of Hitler are sitting across the aisle! 😁

They're the ones who always invoke racism (divisive), dictate what's good for you.....and force you to do as they say thru legislation!

Oh boy- why do you wreck your thread with such ignorant opinion?

 

One thing I can think of right now that shows you hardly know what you're on about: 

what dictator would give back the decision to the people/states (abortion issue)?

Edited June 29, 2024 by betsy

[CdnFox]

12 hours ago, August1991 said:

Let me repeat.

This current conflict is NOT like the 1930s. If anything, it is like the Balkan Wars. Or maybe the Crimean War.

Despite what Bill O'Reilly, Anne Applebaum and Lindsay Graham say, we are not facing Hitler.

=

 

Let me repeat  - that is simply not true and  you're just pulling crap out of your ass. 

 

12 hours ago, August1991 said:

Returning to my OP, if Trump is elected in November 2024 - and he's another Hitler - should Canada remain part of NATO?

That's been answered.  It would sure help these conversations if you would learn to read. 

[CdnFox]

10 hours ago, betsy said:

 

Another "Hitler?"   The spawn of Hitler are sitting across the aisle! 😁

They're the ones who always invoke racism (divisive), dictate what's good for you.....and force you to do as they say thru legislation!

Oh boy- why do you wreck your thread with such ignorant opinion?

 

One thing I can think of right now that shows you hardly know what you're on about: 

what dictator would give back the decision to the people/states (abortion issue)?

IT's an childish thing to say in the first place. We don't join or unjoin defense orgs  based on whether we like or dislike teh current leader. 

He's just being an !diot.  We have NO DEFENSE FORCES currently. We couldn't hold off an invasion of particularly irate bunny rabbits.  We coudn't defend our oceans from a shark with a frikkin laser on it's head. Like it or lump it for now we need to have an alliance with those who could defend us if needed.   

Ukraine didn't.  How'd that work out for them?

[August1991]

On 6/29/2024 at 8:55 PM, CdnFox said:

Let me repeat  - that is simply not true and  you're just pulling crap out of your ass. 

 

That's been answered.  It would sure help these conversations if you would learn to read. 

CdnFox,

I guess you and I will just have to disagree about any similarity between the present and the past.

IMHO, Europe created a structure of peace in 1815. It lasted until 1914. Similarly, the world created a structure of peace in 1945. It lasted until 1991. Since then, we have swimming in strange waters. (This made me think of the period between 1890-1914... )

To confront Russia (Putin et al) and China (Xi et al), America and Europe must do as rulers did in 1815 and 1945. Meet and agree.

Compared to 1945, we have a huge advantage. Everyone agrees that free trade is a good thing.

Edited July 3, 2024 by August1991

[CdnFox]

1 hour ago, August1991 said:

CdnFox,

I guess you and I will just have to disagree about any similarity between the present and the past.

Well you and myself combined with history will have to disagree i guess. 

Quote

IMHO, Europe created a structure of peace in 1815. It lasted until 1914. Similarly, the world created a structure of peace in 1945. It lasted until 1991. Since then, we have swimming in strange waters. (This made me think of the period between 1890-1914... )

It's just demonstrably not true.  There was about 100 significant conflicts between 1814 and 1914, including wars that lated for years.  And there's been tonnes of wars and conflicts between 1945 and 1991  (how the hell  could you forget korea and vietnam?!?! like even people who know nothing of history know those two). 

What you're saying  is simply false. It's not an 'opinon'.  Its as wrong as saying that the sun rises in the west.

Quote

To confront Russia (Putin et al) and China (Xi et al), America and Europe must do as rulers did in 1815 and 1945. Meet and agree.

Well that's why we have nato.

Quote

Compared to 1945, we have a huge advantage. Everyone agrees that free trade is a good thing.

Again demonstrably not true. Biden is very against free trade, believing in an America first policy priority. And to be honest trump wasn't much better.

Honestly you just make up crap out of the blue and pretend it's accurate when it's verifiably and demonstrably false

[August1991]

20 hours ago, CdnFox said:

...

Well that's why we have nato.

...

NATO was part of the 1945 Potsdam/Yalta structure of peace.

Like the Congress of Vienna.

[August1991]

20 hours ago, CdnFox said:

...

It's just demonstrably not true.  There was about 100 significant conflicts between 1814 and 1914, including wars that lated for years.  And there's been tonnes of wars and conflicts between 1945 and 1991  (how the hell  could you forget korea and vietnam?!?! like even people who know nothing of history know those two). 

....

All true.

But the devastation of the World Wars between 1914-1945 have no comparison.

In the entire Vietnam War (Battle of Vietnam: 1963-1975), some 50,000 American men died.

On one single day, more men died in the Battle of the Somme.

====

By curiousity, I found and looked at the battle sites of the Seven Years War, 1756-63. They are nothing like the battlefields of Napoleon.