Canadian govt spending vs US

[Saturn]

Canada gets a free ride because we allow the U.S. to pay for our defense.

Defence from who? I could see the logic during the cold war when there was a threat by an immediate neighbor, however, for the last 20 years the only enemies that Canada has are those enemies created by US foreign policy.

You know, the US protects us from them. You know, THEM. The millions of Canada haters around the world, whose only goal in life is revenge...for all the snow and ice and evil hockey stuff. Ya, it's the anti-hockey terrorists who are after us.

[jdobbin]

The collapse of the Soviet Union and the defeat of China's Gang of Four - to name two examples.

The US won the Cold War by being vigilant for over 40 years - and spending trillions on their military.

Si vis pacem, para bellum.

----

It takes force and patience to confront, arrest and condemn people like Robert Pickton, Clifford Olson and Paul Bernardo. The same exists in international affairs.

I'm sorry. I don't submit to that line of thinking on the cold war or the criminals you mention.

The easiest to dismiss is the Gang of Four. I defy you to find any legit historian to say the U.S. had any role.

On the fall of the Soviet Union, I would submit that the Soviets made the move to reform internally. It remains to be seen if they have gone that route completely. The U.S. didn't defeat the Soviets by military might.

One might say that Canada had influence on the end of the cold war when Eugene Whelan showed the Russians how Canadian agriculture worked.

Throwing in the criminals that you do adds nothing to the discussion. Much of the evidence against them didn't come from superior police numbers. In fact, a lot of it was luck and confessions.

[jdobbin]

Canada gets a free ride because we allow the U.S. to pay for our defense.

Against whom? How are we not involved in our own defence? Are we not paying for it?

[August1991]

I'm sorry. I don't submit to that line of thinking on the cold war or the criminals you mention.

The easiest to dismiss is the Gang of Four. I defy you to find any legit historian to say the U.S. had any role.

On the fall of the Soviet Union, I would submit that the Soviets made the move to reform internally. It remains to be seen if they have gone that route completely. The U.S. didn't defeat the Soviets by military might.

For roughly 40 years, the Soviets and the Chinese wanted to impose their dictatorial system on others. Someone had to stand up to them and it was certainly not Canada - although Canada at times played a role.

If China had been victorious in Korea, how different would the world have been?

If the Soviets had easily taken Vietnam, Afghanistan? If the Soviets had taken Berlin in 1949? If the Soviets had succesfully put missiles in Cuba? If Greece or Malaysia had become communist regimes? If the Soviets had been successful in Angola or Mozambique? If Western Europe had been taken by the Soviets?

Ronald Reagan didn't defeat the Soviets. A series of US presidents from Truman through to Reagan, including Kennedy and Nixon, ensured the defeat of the Soviets - and made possible the success of Deng Hsiao Ping.

The name "Cold War" is apt.

One might say that Canada had influence on the end of the cold war when Eugene Whelan showed the Russians how Canadian agriculture worked.

That's a joke, right?

Throwing in the criminals that you do adds nothing to the discussion. Much of the evidence against them didn't come from superior police numbers. In fact, a lot of it was luck and confessions.

We have to have police to catch criminals. There are people like this in the world and we have to use force to stop them. Sometimes people like this become dictators and threaten us.

[Riverwind]

If China had been victorious in Korea, how different would the world have been?

Korea would be unified but 30 years behind in development. We likely would not have a problem with a nutbar with nukes. Bad for the region and Koreans but I don't think the life of the average Canadian would be much different.

If the Soviets had easily taken Vietnam, Afghanistan? If the Soviets had taken Berlin in 1949?

Absolutely nothing. Vietnam eventually went communist and the world did not end. American interference in Afghanistan set the stage for Al Queada and the terror attacks we see today. The loss of Berlin would have been symbolic lose for the Germans but the greater course history would likely be unchanged.

If the Soviets had successfully put missiles in Cuba?

Don't see what the difference is between an ICBM in Siberia, a shorter range nuke in Cuba or mid range nukes on subs. The Cuban missile crisis was overblown.

If Western Europe had been taken by the Soviets?

That is what the nukes were for. France and Britain had enough to keep the Russians on their side of the Iron Curtain.

The industrial military complex in the US always seeks to justify its existence by exaggerating threats. It is true today and it was true during the cold war.

[jdobbin]

For roughly 40 years, the Soviets and the Chinese wanted to impose their dictatorial system on others. Someone had to stand up to them and it was certainly not Canada - although Canada at times played a role.

If China had been victorious in Korea, how different would the world have been?

If the Soviets had easily taken Vietnam, Afghanistan? If the Soviets had taken Berlin in 1949? If the Soviets had succesfully put missiles in Cuba? If Greece or Malaysia had become communist regimes? If the Soviets had been successful in Angola or Mozambique? If Western Europe had been taken by the Soviets?

Ronald Reagan didn't defeat the Soviets. A series of US presidents from Truman through to Reagan, including Kennedy and Nixon, ensured the defeat of the Soviets - and made possible the success of Deng Hsiao Ping.

The name "Cold War" is apt.

That's a joke, right?

We have to have police to catch criminals. There are people like this in the world and we have to use force to stop them. Sometimes people like this become dictators and threaten us.

As I suspected, you couldn't find anything on the Gang of Four being taken down by U.S. policy.

As far as my comment on Whelan, perhaps you should read Gorbachev's book.

Or read this:

http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/...6393-14,00.html

http://www.russiaprofile.org/politics/arti...C3-18749DCFA4BD

Republicans and right wingers as yourself have been trying to lay credit for the Soviet collapse at Reagan's feet and attributing military might as the difference. In 1983, the Soviets were an incredible power militarily but were spending nearly 25% of the GDP on men and equipment.

The Soviets were being led by a wheezing gerontocracy and when Gorbachev came to power, he looked to make reforms ala China. His education on the world was a quick one and his first visit abroad was to Canada. It was an eye opener.

In essence, it was the economy of the western world that opened Gorbachev eyes and not the staring down the barrel of a gun.

As for your criminal allusions once again, it was not superior numbers of cops that caught the killers you mention. It was luck, an index of suspicion and confessions that did the trick.

[Saturn]

Yes, I used to live on $12,000 a year and $6,000 of that went to tuition and textbooks (the rest to rent and food). It is quite possible to live on $15,000 a year.

If you live alone and have no dependents of any sort. You were also a student with special tax advantages and you probably made minimal (if any) statutory contributions.

Nice analysis, but not accurate. The person in question here is a single senior with no dependents. Students get special tax advantages but so do seniors and the two cases are quite comparable. $15,000 for a senior with no dependents should be enough to live on in most cases.

[Saturn]

The industrial military complex in the US always seeks to justify its existence by exaggerating threats. It is true today and it was true during the cold war.

The industrial military complex in the US created the Cold War in the first place. The Soviets were always playing catch up with the Americans. When the Soviets had 4 nuclear warheads, the Americans had 300, so the Soviets had to make another 300 to catch up. When they got there, the Americans had 3,000 so the Soviets had to play catch up again. And again. And then we ended up with enough nukes to blow up everything on earth a 1000 times over.

[White Doors]

The industrial military complex in the US always seeks to justify its existence by exaggerating threats. It is true today and it was true during the cold war.

The industrial military complex in the US created the Cold War in the first place. The Soviets were always playing catch up with the Americans. When the Soviets had 4 nuclear warheads, the Americans had 300, so the Soviets had to make another 300 to catch up. When they got there, the Americans had 3,000 so the Soviets had to play catch up again. And again. And then we ended up with enough nukes to blow up everything on earth a 1000 times over.

Actually you have it backwards. The Soviets consistently had more nuclear warheads than the Americans.

[Topaz]

One thing that the US has done that Canada may have the same problem, if anyone knows please say, and that is the loans that Bush has recieve from China, S.Korea, Japan etc to help pay for Federal expenses. China holds almost 1 Billions of the US debt. Does anyone know if Canada does this too? The war in Iraq is going to hit hard down the road in the US and we here in Canada are going to feel it also, down the road.

[HistoryBuff44]

Very generally, the US pays for its military and Canada gets to free ride under the US security umbrella. Canadian governments pay for more health and education services.

I keep hearing that Canada gets a free ride. What exactly have we been protected from that we couldn't do ourselves?

i couldnt agree more, we constantly get that from people in the states especially, but what was this great thread that the US saved us from??? Vietnam? dont think they were coming here to get us. Iraq? dido. the soviets? in that case they would have been fighting NATO. granted we dont meet NATO treaty standards at the moment but then a lot of countries in it dont.

[HistoryBuff44]

The industrial military complex in the US always seeks to justify its existence by exaggerating threats. It is true today and it was true during the cold war.

The industrial military complex in the US created the Cold War in the first place. The Soviets were always playing catch up with the Americans. When the Soviets had 4 nuclear warheads, the Americans had 300, so the Soviets had to make another 300 to catch up. When they got there, the Americans had 3,000 so the Soviets had to play catch up again. And again. And then we ended up with enough nukes to blow up everything on earth a 1000 times over.

Actually you have it backwards. The Soviets consistently had more nuclear warheads than the Americans.

actually the soviets were behind in nuclear warheads until the mid 70's at which time they continued to build even though the US stockpile was dropping. by the latter 80's they had close to 45,000 of them.