Western Standard

The Shotgun Blog

« It's Not Racist | Main | The skinny on Van Loan, from an admittedly biased source »

Tuesday, November 28, 2006

More American appreciation for Canada

I did happen to come across this in National Review Online's Corner Blog today; I thought it worthy enough to stick my head out of the shell and mention it (emphasis added):

MARA LIASSON: [T]he U.S. wants the European and other NATO countries to pony up more. That's, I think, been a perennial problem. You and I have covered a lot of summits where the Europeans talk big, they want to be a counterweight to the United States, but as you heard Nick Burns just say, they're not willing to spend the proportion of their GDP on defense the way we do.

KONDRACKE: The United States spends about 3.8 percent of GDP on defense, the whole rest of NATO spends 1.9 percent. . . . And our friends, the French, you know, have specifically refused to get involved in Afghanistan. They've got 20,000 men that they have on standby duty for use someplace, and when they were asked specifically to join up and go help out in Afghanistan, they said, "No, we're going to hold these back in case they're needed in Kosovo." You know, typically French.

BARNES: [T]he Germans, the Italians and the Spanish, even when they come, they have a rule. No combat. They don't want to fight. So it's left to the Americans, the Canadians, and the Dutch, actually, are pretty good. And then the Australians, who aren't even members of NATO are the ones who are actually doing the fighting. And the Canadians have lost 34 soldiers in recent months, so they've really done a good job.

Look, the Europeans have been free-riders now for 60 years. It's going to are hard to get them off the dole, it really is. And it'll almost be small amounts of money, percentage-wise.

Posted by D.J. McGuire on November 28, 2006 in Canadian Politics, International Affairs, Military | Permalink

TrackBack

TrackBack URL for this entry:
https://www.typepad.com/services/trackback/6a00d834515b5d69e200d834ff423969e2

Listed below are links to weblogs that reference More American appreciation for Canada:

Comments

I continue to be nervous about encouraging the Germans into military adventures. How enthusiastic do you want them to be?

Posted by: Fred Z | 2006-11-28 6:18:43 PM


Fred Z.
Of course, you are right. Let's draft the Italians instead just to be safe.

Posted by: h2o273kk9 | 2006-11-28 6:22:19 PM


BARNES:And the Canadians have lost 34 soldiers in recent months, so they've really done a good job.

If we lose 100 soldiers does that mean we are doing an even better job?

Cool video time.

http://www.break.com/index/bunker_buster_in_slow_motion.html

Posted by: No Spin Zone | 2006-11-28 7:31:50 PM


NSZ
"If we lose 100 soldiers does that mean we are doing an even better job?"

Give me the ratio of dead Taliban first and then we'll talk.

Posted by: h2o273kk9 | 2006-11-28 7:47:00 PM


"Give me the ratio of dead Taliban and then we'll talk."

Actually, h2o, that question should be put to BARNES and not to NSZ. BARNES is the one who implied that the number of soldiers killed is a measure of how good a job they are doing, without mentioning the ratio of dead Taliban.

What I understand BARNES to mean is that Canadian soldiers being killed answering the call of duty is a measure of our commitment in the global effort against terrorism.

BTW, as of 28 Nov, here are some numbers of military fatalities in Afghanistan:
US=354
Canada=44
UK=41

Posted by: Nothing New Under the Sun | 2006-11-28 11:06:21 PM


Coalition Casualties in Afghanistan. approx. 447
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coalition_casualties_in_Afghanistan

Enemy(al-Qa'eda and Taliban) killed in Afghanistan estimated at 7000+.

Posted by: Speller | 2006-11-28 11:17:44 PM


> And the Canadians have lost 34 soldiers in recent
> months, so they've really done a good job.

Wow, fascinating logic: "The more of our own people get killed, the better we are". What kind of twisted logic is THAT?

I think this is called a Pyrrhic victory (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pyrrhic_victory)

But hey, for the blog here, as long as this gives a pat on the back from the US you guys love it.

Posted by: Snowrunner | 2006-11-30 10:16:48 AM


Canada ... 44 dead Canadians since 2002, including motor vehicle accidents.

Edmonton ... 34 murders and 24 traffic fatalities this year. Total 78.

WWII ... 110,000 dead Canadian soldiers in five years, one year more than Canada has been in Afghanistan on a UN mission.

Keep things in perspective.

Posted by: Set you free | 2006-11-30 10:21:14 AM


Oops. Math reality check.

Total Edmonton fatalities this year 58, still 14 more in one Canadian city than in Afghanistan in the past four years.

Posted by: Set you free | 2006-11-30 10:24:03 AM


It isn't any kind of victory, let alone Pyrrhic. What we do have is a war of attrition with no victory in sight.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Attrition_warfare

Victory will be achieved when there is no longer an Islamic threat.
I'll let you know when that is, Snowrunner, since you are currently too self absorbed to think any threat exists at all.

Posted by: Speller | 2006-11-30 10:35:00 AM


Speller,

a lot of threats exist, but if 1.2 billion Muslism really wanted me dead I'd be dead. Ask SYF to do the math for you.

How many people are in North America again? How many Muslism?

But if we are in a war of attrition, then please tell me how are we going to win it?

As far as my Pyrrhic reference goes: That was aimed at how Canada it seems needs to bleed to get the approval of the US, not so much about the "war" in Afghanistan (I put that war thing in quotes, as it isn't really a war in the traditional sense).

Posted by: Snowrunner | 2006-11-30 12:41:20 PM


So, let's all sit back and let them kill us ... one at a time?

Posted by: Set you free | 2006-11-30 12:45:20 PM


Snowrunner
"But hey, for the blog here, as long as this gives a pat on the back from the US you guys love it."

Would I be correct in characterizing you as having a lack of appreciation for this show of American appreciation?


Posted by: h2o273kk9 | 2006-11-30 4:55:11 PM


Snowy,
"Wow, fascinating logic: "The more of our own people get killed, the better we are". What kind of twisted logic is THAT?"

Well, for each month of participation by Canadians in WWII, more died. Each month brought us closer to victory. ie. the better (off) we were.

Tragic? Certainly! Necessary? Yes!
You are aware that we have a remembrance day celebrating our dead soldiers who gave their lives for our freedoms. Are you aware of that?

More dead then. Better now.

Posted by: h2o273kk9 | 2006-11-30 7:34:46 PM


h2,

"Would I be correct in characterizing you as having a lack of appreciation for this show of American appreciation?"

If the appreciation has to be bought with a pound of flesh, then yes.

"Well, for each month of participation by Canadians in WWII, more died. Each month brought us closer to victory. ie. the better (off) we were."

Yeah, I know you like to trod out WWII everytime the current situation comes up. Too bad this isn't even remotely the same situation.

Tell me exactly: What countries army needs to be military defeated? What head of state needs to sign surrender papers?

This "war on terror" is no war, it is not something an army can win and comparing this current "war" with WWII is insulting to all of the families and soldiers who fought in WWII.

"You are aware that we have a remembrance day celebrating our dead soldiers who gave their lives for our freedoms. Are you aware of that?"

Yes, I am aware, and I am also aware that you try to hijack their sacrifices to justify your own paranoia and political agenda.


"More dead then. Better now."

Showing your colours again. I am sure someone in a cave has the same attitude. How do the two of you differ again?

Posted by: Snowrunner | 2006-12-01 10:12:07 AM


h2o,

The "bats" have convinced themselves that there is no war on terror, and furthermore the west deserves a good ass kicking because we brought it all on ourselves.

How do you even propose to debate with the minds that conceive such sick drivel?

Posted by: deepblue | 2006-12-01 11:10:08 AM


deepblue,
One cannot debate with them as a debate entails people of good faith dealing in issues and sticking by their words. Leftist do neither.

For instance Snowrunner, who represents the people who have forced us to fight a grinding war of attrition instead of using the overwhelming power we have, derides us for fighting a war of attrition and calls it a Pyrrhic Victory when the war is still being fought.

Essentially, they cut off our legs and ridicule us because we do not run to the finish line.

Posted by: Speller | 2006-12-01 11:24:15 AM


Speller,

Well said.

Posted by: deepblue | 2006-12-01 11:27:17 AM


@Speller,

I called it a Pyrrhic victory when it cames to get the "attention of your master" aka. USA.

And yes, this is not a "war", a war implies armies. An Army is a very blunt instrument. You use it to club another army, not fight terrorism.

Terrorism is a CRIME. Cops deal with crimes, not soldiers. To not realize this just shows how little people seem to understand what Terrorism is about and how it works.

But hey, whatever makes sense in your echo chamber.

Posted by: Snowrunner | 2006-12-01 12:01:19 PM


yawn...

Posted by: deepblue | 2006-12-01 12:16:32 PM


Terrorism IS a military tactic used to achieve political ends. Under new international laws it is a crime but the ideas are not at all exclusive.

As it happens the MSM prefers to call them 'militants'.

These 'militants' are criminals, to be sure, and their criminal organisations constitute an army.

"And yes, this is not a "war", a war implies armies."
Posted by: Snowrunner | 1-Dec-06 12:01:19 PM

WAR (plural wars)
A conflict involving the organized use of arms and physical force between countries or other large-scale armed groups. The warring parties hold territory, which they can win or lose; and each has a leading person or organization which can surrender, or collapse, thus ending the war.
http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/war

So much for your delusional implication, eh Snowrunner?

"I called it a Pyrrhic victory when it cames to get the "attention of your master" aka. USA." Snowrunner

Sure, the Liberals sent the CF to Afghanistan just to get American attention.
All in your warped little imagination, Snowrunner.


Posted by: Speller | 2006-12-01 12:16:39 PM


Speller wrote: As it happens the MSM prefers to call them 'militants'.

http://www.honestreporting.com/articles/45884734/critiques/Terrorist_or_Militant$.asp

The research and results section has some interesting stuff in it

Posted by: No Spin Zone | 2006-12-01 12:39:15 PM


Googling 'taliban militants' gets 1,120,000 hits.
No doubt it's conservative warmongers using the phrase.

Posted by: Speller | 2006-12-01 12:46:06 PM


Snowy,
I seem to hit a nerve. You resorted to ad hominem attacks..."paranoia" etc.

h2o said
"Would I be correct in characterizing you as having a lack of appreciation for this show of American appreciation?"

snowy said
"If the appreciation has to be bought with a pound of flesh, then yes."

Would you extend this lack of appreciation if it cost a pound of flesh towards the police or fire dept.? How about WWII vets?

So much for Remembrance Day, eh?

snowy said
"Yeah, I know you like to trod out WWII everytime the current situation comes up."

Really, I'd like to see that list. Date stamp and links in chronological or alphabetical order. Your choice.

snowy said
"Too bad this isn't even remotely the same situation."

I appreciate the sacrifice of those WWII vets so that you could have the freedom to be wrong.

snowy said
"This "war on terror" is no war, it is not something an army can win and comparing this current "war" with WWII is insulting to all of the families and soldiers who fought in WWII."

I didn't get the memo where they elected you to speak for them. However, they did still die so that you could be wrong here again...twice.

snowy said,
"Showing your colours again. I am sure someone in a cave has the same attitude. How do the two of you differ again?"

Well, I'm an atheist, he isn't.
I don't make plans to hijack planes and fly them into buildings.
I'm way cuter.
I'm poorer.
I'm shorter.
I live in a home with hot and cold running water and indoor plumbing.

Shall I continue?

Oh, yeah, I didn't cheer for victory for the Democrats.


Posted by: h2o273kk9 | 2006-12-01 3:27:34 PM


h2,

> I seem to hit a nerve. You resorted to ad hominem
> attacks..."paranoia" etc.

There is hardly another way to describe your fear mongering about the evil Islamist that tries to kill you and everybody else in Canada. If that isn''t paranoia, what is?

> Would you extend this lack of appreciation if it
> cost a pound of flesh towards the police or fire
> dept.? How about WWII vets?

If you call the Firedepartment that is better in preventing fires than fighting them "cowards" or just ignore them, then yes.

As for the WWII vets... When was the last time the US thanked for the contribution? Was that brought up recently? No? Gee, wonder why. Stop abusing the WWII (and while we're at it WWI and Korea) vets to justify your glee over the current casualties because it gives you attention from the US.

> Really, I'd like to see that list. Date stamp
> and links in chronological or alphabetical
> order. Your choice.

Right, as if I am going to comb through all your drivel on this blog right now and pull out all the times you mentioned WWII and how Canada was willing to fight back then but now isn't, or how the Soldiers back then would be pissed at Canadians today etc. etc.

You used this line of argumentation TWICE alone in this posting.

> I appreciate the sacrifice of those WWII vets so
> that you could have the freedom to be wrong.

And here is the THIRD example of you hijacking WWII to further your argument.

> I didn't get the memo where they elected you to
> speak for them. However, they did still die so
> that you could be wrong here again...twice.

I didn't get the memo where you were elected to speak for them either, but yet, it doesn't seem to stop you from doing it alone three times so far in this one posting of yours.

> Well, I'm an atheist, he isn't.

Extreme conviction (even atheism) is bad news. And that comes from me, and atheist.

> I don't make plans to hijack planes and fly them
> into buildings.

The guy in the cave probably doesn't either. He probably can't afford the plane ticket.

> I'm way cuter.

Bit of a Narcissist, are we?

> I'm poorer.

You can't even afford a cave? Does that mean you live on the street? Do you have to use a library computer to post here? If so, I hope you got one of those blankets and jackets they handed out in Edmonton last week, was a bit chilly here.

> I'm shorter.

Got a photo to proof that?

> I live in a home with hot and cold running water
> and indoor plumbing.

Wait, didn't you just say you were poorer? So what is it? Could it be that you just make stuff up to bolster your arguments?

> Shall I continue?

Sure, please do.

> Oh, yeah, I didn't cheer for victory for the
> Democrats.

No surprise there, but you are clearly more childish.

Posted by: Snowrunner | 2006-12-02 12:17:42 AM


oh, deepblue,

I see your brain is still shutting down when it is overloaded.... Sorry, I thought you had gotten that under control. My bad.

Posted by: Snowrunner | 2006-12-02 12:18:41 AM


Give it up and go back to the minor leagues, Snowy.

You're not talented enough to play here.

Posted by: Set you free | 2006-12-02 12:42:00 AM


Snowblind,

If I thought you were worth a serious post, I would give you one.

I step over dog crap as well.

Posted by: deepblue | 2006-12-02 12:54:39 AM


Snowy,
Your ad hominem attacks are growing in frequency and shrillness. I'm sorry you feel this necessary.

"Extreme conviction (even atheism) is bad news. And that comes from me, and atheist."

Espousing a point of view is now considered extreme? Are you projecting the anger and fear in your heart and mind because you feel alone in the universe?

"There is hardly another way to describe your fear mongering about the evil Islamist that tries to kill you and everybody else in Canada. If that isn''t paranoia, what is?"

No fearmongering from me. You seem to like provoking posters here and calling them names when you disagree. Projecting more fears?

No speaking for WWII soldiers from me. They did, in fact, die for my freedeom. You, on the other hand, have determined for them what should insult them. Definitely projecting.

As you did not provide the requested links (excluding this thread) detailing my alleged repeated reference to WWII combined with my denial that I have done this leads me to again accuse you of projection.

"Bit of a Narcissist, are we?"
Me, only in the healthy sense. You, given your level of hostilities and projections...definitely.

"No surprise there, but you are clearly more childish."

So not supporting a particular political party makes one childish. I want to know. Did you support them?


Posted by: h2o273kk9 | 2006-12-02 7:35:40 AM



The comments to this entry are closed.