I will apologize for the rudenss of the words “fuck off”, common though they be in every forum on this board. But most certainly not for the sentiment behind the words, which after all are only a convenient abbreviation.
I was expressing a frustration, which was certainly evident in post, from the point of view of a citizen of a nation that takes on a disproportionate share of the load in the world (and refute that if you can, but the you’ll be arguing against the numbers). To constantly hear and see discussions about what “we” should do from someone who isn’t fully part of that “we” and makes no effort to be is constantly galling. It’s far less amusing in a context where actual lives are at stake than when the same person issues pronouncements in some depth about “our” politics, and never (in here) about his own except in the most simplistic and irresponsibly dismissive terms. It would be nice to see some acknowledgment that this person has any interest in how that sounds.
As for the topic itself, now a hijack for which I also apologize, Sam, you’re still not getting the point. In no way am I denigrating the quality of the Canadian military themselves. I have actually dealt with some professionally, and the few that exist are as good as anyone else’s. You’re objecting at length to a point that hasn’t been raised. The point is the national decision by Canada, either consciously or by drift, to let the Americans take care of your defense needs for you. If you abdicate a responsibility to someone else, then don’t you abdicate the right to speak about how they carry it out?
Sam, if you’ve been getting told to fuck off a lot lately, maybe the problem isn’t entirely with everyone else, knowhutimean?
Yankee tongue? I’m entertained by your naïveté. “Blood-thirsty lads?” Hah. You don’t think I became fluent in multiple dialects by sitting in some fucking classroom, do you? “Blood thirsty, ” indeed. Blather, empty fucking blather.
Interesting hijack. Burden sharing is a tricky issue. Although the US dominates the world with its astronomical military spending, some caveats are in order. First, a fair amount of that expenditure is pork, which does little to enhance national security, never mind international security.
The US also devotes a far smaller share of its national income to foreign aid than the great majority of industrialized countries. Then there were those UN arrears…
Finally, while I will not speculate about whether Canada has struck the right balance between guns and butter, I think it’s fair to say that Sam Stone probably played a fairly minor role during the budget negotiations. At the same time, our Canadian friend may understand why the US Government might be somewhat reluctant to extend ironclad military guarantees into a volatile part of the world.
Apropos nothing, here are countries with the highest fatalities suffered among contributed members in UN peacekeeping forces (leading 10): FATALITIES BY NATIONALITY as of 3/31/02
106 CANADA
105 INDIA
94 FRANCE
94 GHANA
91 UNITED KINGDOM
83 IRELAND
64 SWEDEN
62 PAKISTAN
54 NIGERIA
54 UNITED STATES
The United States doesn’t really have a force that is any good at peacekeeping. They are too heavily equipped and armed. Therefore, the typical U.N. operation uses the U.S. for the actual attack, and then other countries move in and assume the peacekeeping role.
And the Americans have gotten so good at fighting wars that in the modern world it’s more dangerous to be keeping the peace than fighting the war.
At the same time, our Canadian friend may understand why the US Government might be somewhat reluctant to extend ironclad military guarantees into a volatile part of the world.