Thoughts on US putting joint defense agreement meetings with CN on hold?
(no message)
Replies to: “Thoughts on US putting joint defense agreement meetings with CN on hold?”
Per AP: Canada pledged 5% GDP on defense. Canada will deliver 2%.
I don't know much about what type of "negotiations" are required at the pre-WWII continental defense board that we just "paused" (which I assume means we did not send a representative to this month's meeting), but hopefully this is a small wake-up call to Canada. In the meantime, I assume that Canada's air forces will continue cooperation with the US. Certainly their ground and naval forces are not positioned to defend even their own country, much less ours. They rely on us for that.
Interestingly, Canada's failure to meet its agreed obligations puts pressure on Denmark, as Greenland becomes more important.
They already extended the olive branch to China, no better than Cuba in my eyes….
(no message)
NORAD is for pussies.
(no message)
Wow, you’re so deep.
(no message)
Does pause in participation on the board change anything at NORAD? I'm guessing not.
(no message)
It’s not clear
(no message)
"The 1980's called, and they want their foreign policy back".
The Left has such a rich history of previous comments to draw from, don't they, Ned?
I wouldn't think it would be impacted either. But either way, it would be nice if Canada finally started living up to their side of the responsibilities.
We can't foot the bill for everyone. And the situation will never improve when the free loading countries know that we will eventually pay the bill for them.
One of your stupider posts.
Please explain how Canada is not “living up to its responsibilities” when it comes to the defense of North America. Which is what this is about.
Maybe stay in your lane. Which is zygotes and Opus Dei, presumably.
Can's inadequate defense spending one of lowest in NATO-def spending/GDP projected at only 1.76% by
2029 - 2030 year.
That is how Canada is not living up to their responsibilities. I have linked an article. If history holds, you will not read it, but instead impugn the source. I hope that this will be different, but given the initial ad hominem in your response, it is not looking likely.
Regarding your comment about staying in my lane, these are required to stay in yours.
Link: https://www.heritage.org/defense/report/north-american-security-us-canadian-defense-priorities
Consent Management