No, what I’m presenting is logic and evidence, and what I’m getting back is “Nuh uh!” and stuff that doesn’t even make sense, like “it’s because of this that we can spend more money on health care,” when we don’t even spend more money on health care.
If you have evidence that we DO spend more money on health care, in defiance of what the governments of the United States and Canada say, present it.
If you have evidence Canada saved money by being a free rider during the Cold War, present it.
If you have evidence the U.S. spent money defending Canada, present it.
I have evidence we’ve spent money and lives defending the United States, though.
This is just ridiculous.
As to speaking German, I can’t even believe someone would mention something so irrelevant. Not to point out the brutally obvious here, but we didn’t have a universal health care system until long after the Second World War, and so the alleged choice between health care and military spending has jack squat to do with whether or not the Nazis could take over Europe. In case you weren’t keeping track, World War II (for us) began in 1939 and ended in 1945, while universal health care was adopted in the 1960s.
And in case you’re also not aware of it, it’s pretty damned silly to suggest Canada was holding back on defense expenditures during the SECOND WORLD WAR. Maybe I wasn’t paying attention during history class, but didn’t we kinda go balls-to-the-wall on that one? Pull our weight and then some?
As to the Russian issue, one thing and one thing only kept the Russians in check; nuclear weapons. Aside from the fact that both the UK and France possessed nuclear weapons for most of the Cold War, even a significantly smaller U.S. military would inevitably have included a nuclear deterrent; indeed, for much of the Cold War the U.S. was involved in a serious internal debate over why they had vastly more nuclear weapons than were actually needed to serve as an effective deterrent.
And it still has nothing to do with how much we spend on health care.
