In reply to your conclusion that Canada is a leeching pariah when it comes to military spend and that we deserve to be slaughtered without rescue by allies, all due to us spending $26 billion on defence vs the requisite $38 billion - what could motivate you to write such irrelevant, provocative garbage? Huh?
The knee-jerk reaction that Trump got when he first began to yap about the shortfall (from most NATO members) was like most things he spews - bait for the tiny-minded to be aghast and rally around his schoolyard sandbox mentality. Good for you to take up his bait probably in an attempt to create more knee-jerks than that you think there is a problem here.
If anyone reading your nonsense wants to do more than knee-jerk, they may want to consider the following:
1. Actual total spend by NATO exceeds the 2% pledge by 30% or $280 billion and that's entirely due to the USA spending $300 billion more than their requisite share. So, using the 2% as the magic figure for military security, thanks to the USA, we're flush.
2. A bit of number crunching tells you that the USA is the only country in NATO which could in good conscience leave us to the slaughter is the USA. You might say Greece would hold back as well because of their claim to spend $8 billion on defence, but I doubt that would make much of a difference in the outcome (that's a joke Mark).
3. The USA would never sit back (for the decade it would take Russia or China to move their tanks from Vancouver to southern Ontario (where they could meet your threshold of slaughtering the majority of Canadians). Nope, before the tanks got off the boat, the Americans would move to destroy for no other reason than they wouldn't be chill with an adversary of theirs setting up shop 100 miles from our border with them.
4. Do you think that if all NATO members met the 2% hurdle that the USA would breath a sigh of relief and pull back on the $70 billion that they pony up for us laggards? I don't. I guess that they wouldn't because they are in the business of war and military, both strategically and as a driver of their economy. Heck, back to the math, there's another $280 billion they throw into NATO, 'just because'. The USA isn't some do-gooder nation stepping up to fill the 2% gap. Nope, right or wrong, their military defines them. [Don't get me wrong, they are generally good people].
5. This 2% rule is a 16 year old pledge that needs review amongst NATO. Seeing what gangsters like Putin will do to non-members, NATO has value when it come to peace and democracy. Unless there's a simpleton like you or Trump representing the US interest at the review, I doubt the only change would be to have us cut a $13 billion cheque to American military manufacturers to close the gap on the 2%.
I like (my own idea) of Canada dedicating its military spend [not to kill people, we have loads of that in NATO] to resources, skill, technology, research required to save lives and build/rebuild infrastructure for human survival. It could be directed to Ukraine, post-war, wildfires and floods in the USA or to plow tracker trailers off the road so I could buy milk for the kids.
I guess if we could all live in the fantasy universe you inhabit, Peter, there’d never be war and we’d all ride unicorns instead of gas guzzling apocalypse machines. Until then, I’ll stand by my words.
Just scanned what I wrote and can't find my fantasy about 'there'd never be war...'.
It's time for something more useful than what BOTH sides of the political spectrum spew these days. I am tired of the anecdotal bullpoop from the far left and the far right. Sure it's easier to come up with and gain popularity with 'stop the gravy train' and anecdotal dribble, but it usually is just a election slogan. You can do better, write more useful pieces.
In case you need this, your calculation on 2% of our GDP is correct. And so is my suggestion that NATO needs to assess and update their 'who we are/what we do/how we do it'. The Americans will always spend more than what the rest of NATO agrees is needed. Have at it.
In reply to your conclusion that Canada is a leeching pariah when it comes to military spend and that we deserve to be slaughtered without rescue by allies, all due to us spending $26 billion on defence vs the requisite $38 billion - what could motivate you to write such irrelevant, provocative garbage? Huh?
The knee-jerk reaction that Trump got when he first began to yap about the shortfall (from most NATO members) was like most things he spews - bait for the tiny-minded to be aghast and rally around his schoolyard sandbox mentality. Good for you to take up his bait probably in an attempt to create more knee-jerks than that you think there is a problem here.
If anyone reading your nonsense wants to do more than knee-jerk, they may want to consider the following:
1. Actual total spend by NATO exceeds the 2% pledge by 30% or $280 billion and that's entirely due to the USA spending $300 billion more than their requisite share. So, using the 2% as the magic figure for military security, thanks to the USA, we're flush.
2. A bit of number crunching tells you that the USA is the only country in NATO which could in good conscience leave us to the slaughter is the USA. You might say Greece would hold back as well because of their claim to spend $8 billion on defence, but I doubt that would make much of a difference in the outcome (that's a joke Mark).
3. The USA would never sit back (for the decade it would take Russia or China to move their tanks from Vancouver to southern Ontario (where they could meet your threshold of slaughtering the majority of Canadians). Nope, before the tanks got off the boat, the Americans would move to destroy for no other reason than they wouldn't be chill with an adversary of theirs setting up shop 100 miles from our border with them.
4. Do you think that if all NATO members met the 2% hurdle that the USA would breath a sigh of relief and pull back on the $70 billion that they pony up for us laggards? I don't. I guess that they wouldn't because they are in the business of war and military, both strategically and as a driver of their economy. Heck, back to the math, there's another $280 billion they throw into NATO, 'just because'. The USA isn't some do-gooder nation stepping up to fill the 2% gap. Nope, right or wrong, their military defines them. [Don't get me wrong, they are generally good people].
5. This 2% rule is a 16 year old pledge that needs review amongst NATO. Seeing what gangsters like Putin will do to non-members, NATO has value when it come to peace and democracy. Unless there's a simpleton like you or Trump representing the US interest at the review, I doubt the only change would be to have us cut a $13 billion cheque to American military manufacturers to close the gap on the 2%.
I like (my own idea) of Canada dedicating its military spend [not to kill people, we have loads of that in NATO] to resources, skill, technology, research required to save lives and build/rebuild infrastructure for human survival. It could be directed to Ukraine, post-war, wildfires and floods in the USA or to plow tracker trailers off the road so I could buy milk for the kids.
Have a nice day, especially you Mark.
I guess if we could all live in the fantasy universe you inhabit, Peter, there’d never be war and we’d all ride unicorns instead of gas guzzling apocalypse machines. Until then, I’ll stand by my words.
Just scanned what I wrote and can't find my fantasy about 'there'd never be war...'.
It's time for something more useful than what BOTH sides of the political spectrum spew these days. I am tired of the anecdotal bullpoop from the far left and the far right. Sure it's easier to come up with and gain popularity with 'stop the gravy train' and anecdotal dribble, but it usually is just a election slogan. You can do better, write more useful pieces.
In case you need this, your calculation on 2% of our GDP is correct. And so is my suggestion that NATO needs to assess and update their 'who we are/what we do/how we do it'. The Americans will always spend more than what the rest of NATO agrees is needed. Have at it.