That must be why America was destroyed in the 19th century by all those waves of foreign immigration; the nation collapsed after it could no longer maintain its sovereignty in the ‘hoods around its own cities.

/sarcasm

The fact that Northern Light cites, is in fact our “weight class”. The fact that our soldiers do amazing things with minimal resources does not alter the fact that they have minimal resources. It is entirely true that Canada’s military budget would be orders of magnitude larger than current if the U.S. wasn’t around (or collapsed), especially in the Arctic. If the North opens up with climate change as predicted, that will come into sharper focus.

As to why that is, notwithstanding American involvement in what looks to me like a typical Canadian government Operation Foot Bullet w/r/t the Avro Arrow, I don’t doubt for a second that the Canadian government and Left are quite happy to have the U.S. military “subsidy” help pay for socialized health care.

I would remind you that the army which defeated Cornwallis at Yorktown was half American under Washington and half French under the Comte de Rochambeau.

And, in case you were sleeping that day in history, in 1812 France and Britain were at war with each other, Wellington trading blows with Napoleon’s marshals in Spain and Portugal.

Marie Claude, Jefferson was no longer President in 1812. It was James Madison.

I let you imagine your debacle LMAO

umm in 1812 you decleared war against England, can’t see that Napoleon was unfavorable to it.

oh, wait, because the access to european harbours were closed to the american merchandises (the mutual anglo-franco embargo was the cause,when the Brits looted your ships (USS Chesapeake) and forced the american (some of them were former British) seemen to enrol in their navy, and that your country forbid the continental ships the access to the american harbours and caraibean colonial’s, when Jefferson wanted to conquer Canada, that’s were the real fighters, the Canadians, the french canadian helped for good reasons (Salaberry anyone ? 2000 vs 6000 Americans), that is how Canada become the the country Canada.
But there were no continental French in the battles, even in New Orleans, Canadians, french Canadians

so you invent your conflict, though if Napoleaon would really had wanted to side the Brits, you might be talking french on this board today

Hear, hear. We never should have been in either the UN or NATO, nor should we have entered WWI or WWII, both of which we could have stayed out of if we had competent leadership.

Let the Europeans and Asians pay for their own defense and fight their own wars. Not our problem.

“But when the United States was attacked and activated the NATO alliance, our continental allies were nowhere to be found. As of today, the five largest nations in Europe have 11,300 troops total in Afghanistan, most of which are instructed to avoid combat. And NATO’s role in Iraq is limited to training, as if the war was not yet begun!”

You can forget about securing any advantage from alliances with these guys. The alliances that the idiot liberals put us into, after they bungled us into WWII, were always one-way affairs…entirely to their benefit, entirely not to our benefit.

George Washington said it all more than 200 years ago:

“The great rule of conduct for us, in regard to foreign nations, is, in extending our commercial relations, to have with them as little political connexion as possible. So far as we have already formed engagements, let them be fulfilled with perfect good faith. Here let us stop.”

“Europe has a set of primary interests, which to us have none, or a very remote relation. Hence she must be engaged in frequent controversies, the causes of which are essentially foreign to our concerns. Hence, therefore, it must be unwise in us to implicate ourselves, by artificial ties, in the ordinary vicissitudes of her politics, or the ordinary combinations and collisions of her friendships or enmities.”

“Our detached and distant situation invites and enables us to pursue a different course. If we remain one people, under an efficient government, the period is not far off, when we may defy material injury from external annoyance; when we may take such an attitude as will cause the neutrality, we may at any time resolve upon, to be scrupulously respected; when belligerent nations, under the impossibility of making acquisitions upon us, will not lightly hazard the giving us provocation; when we may choose peace or war, as our interest, guided by justice, shall counsel.”

“Why forego the advantages of so peculiar a situation? Why quit our own to stand upon foreign ground? Why, by interweaving our destiny with that of any part of Europe, entangle our peace and prosperity in the toils of European ambition, rivalship, interest, humor, or caprice? ”

“It is our true policy to steer clear of permanent alliances with any portion of the foreign world…”

True then…true now.

yes, but if you repeat everyday to the Europeans that they owe you their free asses, that doesn’t help you to to go further with them. It took to Churchill a few years and many travels to Washington to convince Roosvelt to help Europe, while your former administration leader didn’t even try to cross the Atlantic to meet the political leaders there, but displayed anathemas from his bunker : “you are with us or against us”. Mr Bush might be a god man, but he hasn’t the patience to explain what he was in a hurry to decide.

Besides France waited for 150 years that your country pay her back

savage24:
haha! I really do love it when I write 1500 words and someone sums up my entire point in a pithy and witty phrase.

Northern Light:
Well there is a principle here. NATO is a defense pact. If you’re not willing to commit to having tens of thousands of your country’s soldiers on standby ready to defend any one of the 28 member countries in case they are attacked, then you really don’t belong in NATO. You belong in the UN or some other organization that will wring its hands and maybe pass a stern resolution in the event that your countrymen are murdered. That said, Europe is a freeloader because they owe their freedom to American soldiers twice over and still won’t commit any troops to the defense of the West. Canada doesn’t have quite that level of “shirk” – and yes, perhaps I am scared of Canadians!

BTW Europe’s personal for me – my grandfather was drafted, sent to London, shot down over Germany, and then sat in a POW camp for almost a year. Three of his four brothers also served in the toughest of conditions and the family’s lucky they made it all home. Yet when my own city was attacked (I’m from DC, grew up near the Pentagon), Europeans told me directly (I was overseas) that Afghanistan was a graveyard for superpowers and we would never succeed there.

FreeQuark:
The consumer responds to market choices heavily influenced by the government, but your point is well taken. Mine is not to advocate trade barriers but more to make the point that access to US markets shouldn’t be a given. These “cheap labor” countries need us a lot more than we need them. If we cut off trade to China, all of those factories would just move to Brazil or Mexico or India and we wouldn’t even notice. We should insist on some prerequisites from our trading partners, like respect for intellectual property (our only real export) and some basic safety standards. Otherwise we’re just giving away our jobs and our intellectual property and then paying increased costs to deal with a supply chain of deadly products.

This article is also intended to denigrate the concept of the “international community”. Not because I am an isolationist – I would love to see 100 countries in NATO, all pulling their weight and contributing to world security – but because when you have communities in which people have lots of rights but no responsibilities the result is tyranny.