Hell, it’s tough enough sharing a board with’em.
I don’t expect the US to make it to the end of the century myself. The difference between me and that jerk is that I fear the chaos that will erupt on a global scale when this happens. Does this guy have any notion of the immense suffering that will take place?
Do people in Europe and Asia completely fail to understand how important the United States Navy is to keeping international shipping lanes open? Who do they expect to take over that duty when the US can no longer maintain its naval forces?
When the Pax Americana is over, the entire globe will suffer.
Why, the Chinese People’s Army Navy, of course.
Sure, there probably won’t be war between France and England, once the US becomes no longer a concern… but what of the Middle East? (And I’m not just talking Israel) What of Africa? What of the Balkans and Siberia? What of the next Chavez, only slightly crazier?
What of the pirates?
Apparently it has been so far.
If you’re claiming the opposite, please do provide some evidence and reasoning. What, exactly, would Canada have to buy that it is not buying now? What specific military need would have to be met?
What evidence do you have that (a) Canada needs military protection to maintain external trade and (b) that the United States is providing it? I mean, you do know most of our trade is with the United States anyway?
You’re speaking in theories and might-bes. I’m asking for specific examples, such as the one I provided you of Canada paying money and lives for the USA’s defense, which I note is as of yet unaddressed. We honor our commitments, but I suppose it doesn’t matter if the lives lost aren’t Americans.
Is the United States actively patrolling our coasts? That would come as news to me. Which fleets or task forces are assigned to this vital task?
And you’ll forgive me if I find the implication that the United States is even capable of patrolling borders to be a sad joke. The USA can’t even stop poor Mexicans from crossing the border by the thousands, and you’re now going to patrol the world’s longest coastline? It is to laugh; you now want credit for something you not only don’t do, but aren’t even capable of doing.
I’m guessing because Canada is rather inconveniently located if you’re a foreign power bent on its destruction. What nation can you think of that has both the will and capability - even in the absence of American intervention - to mount an expedition large enough to accomplish a trans-oceanic amphibious invasion on a continental scale, in the face of a nation that, while it may have a smaller armed forces than the USA’s, does in fact have a number of highly advanced surface warfare vessels and warplanes? I can’t think of any realistic threats of that sort, can you?
It is quite amazing, then, that Canada was already safe and prosperous before World War II, when the United States was isolationist, had a much smaller military, and wasn’t committed to any mutual defense pacts.
I’ll ask again: Show me one marginal dime.
How stupid of us. Obviously, it’s a big conspiracy.
Well, no. Just as we spent more on defense in 1943, when we needed to. Life’s like that. What this has to do with your allegations of us owing you anything I cannot imagine. If Canada was in Africa it wouldn’t be Canada, and if a frog had wings it wouldn’t bump its ass when it hops.
How can your economy thrive without a huge military industrial complex.? we must teach you how.
Other points aside, you do realize that during this time Canada was a subject of the Queen (back when this actually meant something) and that the Royal Navy was a world power, right?
Global free trade as we know it today was made possible by the British navy in the 19th century and the U.S. navy since WWII. In neither case did they have to patrol the whole world. The complete and utter superiority of their navies combined with their commitment to freedom of the seas is enough to make it happen.
And by the way, if you don’t think that there isn’t at least one sub sitting under the polar ice cap right now, combined with who knows how many listening posts, then I don’t know what to tell you.
Good thing we have the US Navy to make sure we can ship more things here than we sell abroad. Clearly no-one else in the world has a compelling economic interest in us maintaining our negative balance of trade.
Huh? Is this supposed to be a snarky response to my last post? Do you think a world order where the U.S. became a net importer just happened overnight? Or do you think that just maybe the international system of free trade first promoted by the British Empire and later the U.S. is what allowed that to happen?
Actually it would be subject to the King (Elizabeth hasn’t reigned that long…) however that aside from 1867 on we handled our own defense as a soveregn nation who happens to have the same head of state as England.
In times of war this country has put more than its fair share into the military and has paid more than its fair share of the price.
As a nation we choose in times of peace to cut back the expendature of our military because… well it just makes sense. We do not militarily exert our influence but rather do it economically and politically. You’d be surprised how many nations aren’t out there just waiting to conquer another to get what they want.
As much as you’d like to think everyone is on their best behaviour because the global superpower is watching, it’s not so. Most Nations prefer stability and trade. This isn’t CIV IV where every nation is waiting for the excuse to invade another for their loot. Peace and stability are profitable!
As RickJay has also pointed out mounting an invasion of this country is a logistical nightmare. Look at the size of the thing!! Who could mount a successful invasion? Well there is one country that has a better chance than others and it happens to also benifit from having a long undefended border.
In the history of Canada, even before Confederation only two nations have attempted invasion, England when the Quebec region was under French control and the second would be the United States.
We’ve since patched up our differences so an invasion from the south seems unlikely. So what are we supposed to ramp up our defenses for? An invasion from China? Russia? The Viet Cong?
Seriously who is it that is spoiling to invade Canada if its “big brother” wasn’t around?
My point is that it is not solely in the US’s interest to have free trade, and that if we stopped acting like the world’s policemen other countries would have to take up the slack of insuring that shipping will continue. And maybe if we stopped spending so much money on the military we could re-build our industrial base and actually produce something other than weapons and wheat to sell overseas.
I don’t remember the particulars, but didn’t Canada do more than it’s share of the heavy lifting on D-Day?
And the RN wouldn’t have lifted a finger if Canada was attacked? :dubious: And this wasn’t perfectly understood by any nation eying Canada? :dubious:
Yes you have…and in the past even in peace time you shouldered your share of defense as well. I find it incredible that you and Rick are actually arguing with a straight face that you have been able to further cut back your peace time expenditures for reasons other than having an 800 lb gorilla just south of you who would pound anyone who fucked with you into scrap…and that this hasn’t factored into your collective decision to cut defense spending.
Certainly it makes sense. You CAN cut back on your defense so you do so. Duh! The REASON you can cut back is because…?
I think it is you who would be surprised at how many nations would revert to the use of military force to get what they want or need if they could get away with it without getting the ship pounded out of them.
They were profitable before WWI and WWII as well…and yet…
Logistics are certainly a valid point. Currently no one has the means to invade and conquer you (except maybe the US…and that has less chance than a snow ball in hell). However what could you do if, say, China decided it wanted to exploit your offshore resources? Of if they wanted to try and leverage you to give them, oh, say, some of your oil once it starts getting really scarce in the ME? A couple of demonstration flights of bombers on your coast…some sub exercises off your shores…maybe a ballistic missile ‘test’ across your bows. What would you do then? What COULD you do then?
My guess is…you’d be screwed. It would be to late to ramp up your defense by then. This isn’t the 19th century where you can use your industrial might to build a war machine from scratch a la the US in the first and second world wars (and lets not forget the price we paid for doing it that way, ehe?). Even if you COULD do it it would mean…yup…you’d have to spend more on defense than you currently do. And why? Well…I’ll let you work that one out along with Rick.
Two things. First off, when the US invaded Canada we were a brand spankin new country…with, lets face it, a pretty meager and puny military. And Canada was backed by the UK…the greatest empire and military force of it’s day. It was pretty much a non-starter.
The other point is…things have changed a bit since the early 19th century in terms of military capabilities.
You would ramp up your defense against some nation attempting to leverage you…to give them whatever it is they want from you because they have the ability to hammer you from afar. I could see the Chinese doing this for sure if the US was out of the way. You have a LOT of things they would want. They might not be able to invade you but they don’t HAVE to…not to exert substantial influence over you with the threat of military force. I can see other nations who COULD do the same things to you as well, depending on who you allied yourself with post-US. For that matter, consider a fragmented US for a moment…with all this military hardware down here in the hands of gods know who doing gods know what. You would have no way of protecting yourself from cross border raids from those folks…or from the likely refugees fleeing the US if it was really bad here.
You (and Rick I guess) are thinking in terms of massive and epic invasions. All it will take is someone with a nuke on the tip of a missile telling you that it’s pointed at your capital (or several of your big cities) and, oh, would you mind signing this treaty giving us full rights to your oil reserves? Or parking a fleet off your coast and telling you they want to start exploiting your offshore resources…m’kay? You don’t mind, right?
Seriously…anyone who could.
-XT
What do you consider Canada’s fair share? They were there…and IIRC they lost something like 400 soldiers in the initial invasion. They fought well and I don’t want to take anything away from them…but both the US and the Brits lost more soldiers that day (the US was something like 2000 while the Brits lost something like 1500, again from memory). What do you think Canada’s share was…considering they were part of the British Commonwealth and had commitments and duty to do what they did?
I’m not trying to rile up the Canadians here btw…or to lessen their heroic role in WWII or in the various other conflicts they have taken part in, including Afghanistan. Considering the state of Canada’s military expenditures they have gone over and above the call of duty in Afghanistan…out doing most of our European allies (excluding the Brits of course) by actually, well, fighting (instead of hiding in their bases).
BTW, Rick Jay said something earlier (I had replied to his post but it got eaten by the board earlier when I couldn’t access the board at all for some reason for a couple of hours) and I wanted to briefly address that here: He said “What this has to do with your allegations of us owing you anything I cannot imagine.” You are confusing me with other posters Rick…I never said you owed the US anything. All I wanted to point out was that you are able to spend what you do on defense (and funnel that extra money into other projects) because of the US. That doesn’t mean you owe us anything…and I doubt most Americans (including me) feel you should or would owe us anything for that. As I said in an earlier post we have the defense we do for our own reasons…many of them historical, some of them political but all of them internal to the US. You benefit by our military and by our relationship however, and you are kidding yourself if you think otherwise. As do the Europeans. I wonder if the real ramifications of a world without a US REALLY sinks into most people. I’m guessing (by this thread) that the answer is…it doesn’t. Not really.
-XT
What the heck is this Canada stuff? Geez, even if the USA broke into thirteen pieces, we’d still be there to protect Canada as well as Canada wanted us to. You’re family. And strategically critical. It’s the rest of the world that’ll be messed up.
Queen or King (don’t forget Victoria’s long reign int he relevant time period), the point remains. I know that post 1867 that Canad was a self governing Dominion within the Empire, but it is foolish to think that the Royal Navy didn’t go a long way toward helping to defend Canada. I don’t have my sources on hand, but in the pre WWI arms race, didn’t Canada pay for a dreadnought in recognition of this?
You’re missing my point, I’m not saying that without the U.S navy that a free for all is imminent or that Canada will be invaded. What I’m saying is that the current world free trade system, from which Canada and all of the west benefits, was put in place by GB and later the US by virtue of their naval preeminence. A country projects its power around the globe through its navy. If some rouge country tried to shut down the Malacca Straights tomorrow, I’d happily bet my house that the U.S. would have a sizable naval contingent there as quickly as it could.
Ahh, I understand and agree. The problem is as that navy-wise, no one really has the ships to be able to take that up. My knowledge is a little rusty on this, but I think England, who is still probably the world’s #2 navy doesn’t even currently have a full sized aircraft carrier and is under constant political pressure to further downsize. Hopefully, China can be prevailed upon to do more in this area considering the benefits they’ve reaped from globalization, but who knows about that.
Military coup. If the office of the president proves nothing else, it proves that anyone can be elected in this country, notwithstanding a well-documented record of utter failure and personal uselessness. But upon election the power of that man becomes very real, and when that tendency towards utter failure begins to directly effect millions upon millions of people, all bets are off. It is not a question of whether a coup would happen. It is a question of just how many mistakes the executive can make before a coup becomes likely. We might imagine ourselves ideologically opposed to such a thing, but there are times when the tyranny of one responsible man with a gun may be preferable to the tyranny of many irresponsible fools who are infinitely susceptible to bribery, beguilement and being led to endless and profitless war.
I don’t think the last eight years have been a great success story for our system of government, but obviously, they haven’t been bad enough to warrant a coup. There will be good times, and bad times. But there are worse people willing to run for president, unbelievable as that may seem, and no one sensible can trust the electorate not to vote for them. The electorate has failed in the past and will fail in the future; that is not in and of itself the end. The question is whether it can fail badly enough that armed insurrection becomes irresistably attractive for a powerful faction in our society. I wish I could say otherwise, but I do believe that this country would elect Bugs Bunny if he told them what they wanted to hear. And I do begin to question just how great a fool the Union can endure before a short and relatively bloodless second civil war finds our Constitution subject to sudden amendment or indefinite suspension.
You’re nothing more then a racist are’nt you?
What ever the subject you’ve just got to get a dig in about the Zygaxians have’nt you?
Just because your skin is green and covered in mucous it does’nt mean that your a bad person,just lay off of them for gods sake.