NATO & the Trump Factor

[Hoid]

Is there a difference?

 

[Twin_Moose]

The U.S. will never leave or abandon NATO. They intend to leave the United Nations and police the world through NATO.

It was only after America formed NATO that they could begin to call America "The Leader Of The Free World".

America just wants NATO members to purchase more American made military equipment.

Are you sure it wasn't Churchill that championed the formation of NATO to keep the US engaged in the defence of Europe from the aggressive manner of the then Russian expansion

 

[Hoid]

Are you sure it wasn't Churchill that championed the formation of NATO to keep the US engaged in the defence of Europe from the aggressive manner of the then Russian expansion

He was not prime minster at that time....

 

[Twin_Moose]

We was warning the world against Stalin before the war ended

 

[Hoid]

How is that championing NATO?

What Churchill actually championed was the European Union - decades before it appeared.

He was also on record as wanting to keep the tanks rolling through Berlin right to Moscow.

 

[Twin_Moose]

So basically what I said then thanks for verifying it

 

[JLM]

Are you sure it wasn't Churchill that championed the formation of NATO to keep the US engaged in the defence of Europe from the aggressive manner of the then Russian expansion

It may have been Clem Attlee.

 

[Hoid]

So basically what I said then thanks for verifying it

I understand you are only doing your job.

 

[Curious Cdn]

It's nothing to do with the F-35.

I bet that it does.

Are you sure it wasn't Churchill that championed the formation of NATO to keep the US engaged in the defence of Europe from the aggressive manner of the then Russian expansion

One of the fathers of NATO was our very own Lester B. Pearson (a WWI combat veteran as well as a notorious LIE-beral).

The History of Canada’s Involvement in the Creation of NATO – NAOC

http://www.britannica.com/biography/Lester-B-Pearson

 

[White_Unifier]

I bet that it does.



One of the fathers of NATO was our very own Lester B. Pearson (a WWI combat veteran as well as a notorious LIE-beral).

The History of Canada’s Involvement in the Creation of NATO – NAOC

Now now, Curious Cdn, don't trigger him with liberal words. We don't need another textual barrage.

 

[Twin_Moose]

I bet that it does.



One of the fathers of NATO was our very own Lester B. Pearson (a WWI combat veteran as well as a notorious LIE-beral).

The History of Canada’s Involvement in the Creation of NATO – NAOC

Thanks I knew we were one of the founders I couldn't think of which PM and was to lazy to google until now Here is the infamous speech and a quote that set the foundation of NATO

The Sinews of Peace
by Winston S. Churchill

I have, however, a definite and practical proposal to make for action. Courts and magistrates may be set up but they cannot function without sheriffs and constables. The United Nations Organization must immediately begin to be equipped with an international armed force. In such a matter we can only go step by step, but we must begin now. I propose that each of the Powers and States should be invited to delegate a certain number of air squadrons to the service of the world organization. These squadrons would be trained and prepared in their own countries, but would move around in rotation from one country to another. They would wear the uniform of their own countries but with different badges. They would not be required to act against their own nation, but in other respects they would be directed by the world organization. This might be started on a modest scale and would grow as confidence grew. I wished to see this done after the First World War, and I devoutly trust it may be done forthwith.

And the foundation is set

It would nevertheless be wrong and imprudent to entrust the secret knowledge or experience of the atomic bomb, which the United States, Great Britain, and Canada now share, to the world organization, while it is still in its infancy. It would be criminal madness to cast it adrift in this still agitated and un-united world. No one in any country has slept less well in their beds because this knowledge and the method and the raw materials to apply it, are at present largely retained in American hands. I do not believe we should all have slept so soundly had the positions been reversed and if some Communist or neo-Fascist State monopolized for the time being these dread agencies. The fear of them alone might easily have been used to enforce totalitarian systems upon the free democratic world, with consequences appalling to human imagination. God has willed that this shall not be and we have at least a breathing space to set our house in order before this peril has to be encountered: and even then, if no effort is spared, we should still possess so formidable a superiority as to impose effective deterrents upon its employment, or threat of employment, by others. Ultimately, when the essential brotherhood of man is truly embodied and expressed in a world organization with all the necessary practical safeguards to make it effective, these powers would naturally be confided to that world organization.

The United States has already a Permanent Defense Agreement with the Dominion of Canada, which is so devotedly attached to the British Commonwealth and Empire. This Agreement is more effective than many of those which have often been made under formal alliances. This principle should be extended to all British Commonwealths with full reciprocity. Thus, whatever happens, and thus only, shall we be secure ourselves and able to work together for the high and simple causes that are dear to us and bode no ill to any. Eventually there may come - I feel eventually there will come - the principle of common citizenship, but that we may be content to leave to destiny, whose outstretched arm many of us can already clearly see.

There is however an important question we must ask ourselves. Would a special relationship between the United States and the British Commonwealth be inconsistent with our over-riding loyalties to the World Organization? I reply that, on the contrary, it is probably the only means by which that organization will achieve its full stature and strength. There are already the special United States relations with Canada which I have just mentioned

 

[10larry]

We was warning the world against Stalin before the war ended

Read we as the u.s., countless hiroshima and nagasaki innocents were incinerated, blow to bits or maimed just to send stalin a message. Japan was already isolated and impotent at best a pester threat but stalin had their full attention, bombing innocents clearly brings peace, we are witness to it today.

 

[Twin_Moose]

Sorry typo should be He

 

[Hoid]

I believe Atlee was PM when the UK committed to NATO.

 

[Twin_Moose]

You could be right about the PM at the time Churchill still started the charge with Canada and the US

 

[Hoid]

Actually Churchill being for something at this time would be disadvantageous for that thing.

He got destroyed in the 1945 election because he and his party were not trusted with non war issues. His caretaker government was obsolete in peace.

 

[Twin_Moose]

Actually Churchill being for something at this time would be disadvantageous for that thing.

He got destroyed in the 1945 election because he and his party were not trusted with non war issues. His caretaker government was obsolete in peace.

Read post #271

 

[Hoid]

go to school

 

[Curious Cdn]

Thanks I knew we were one of the founders I couldn't think of which PM and was to lazy to google until now Here is the infamous speech and a quote that set the foundation of NATO

The Sinews of Peace
by Winston S. Churchill



And the foundation is set

Pearson became PM a long time after the founding of NATO ... a decade and a half later. He was a career diplomat before that during which time he got the Novel Peace Prize for saving the British and French their asses in Suez with the first UN peace to keeping mission in 1956. Willie Makenzie-King was still PM when then the NATO proposal was first made, followed closely by Louis St. Laurent ... the last Canadian Prime Minister to take our defences seriously.

 

[Bar Sinister]

I have two questions for all of the supporters of increased defence spending. First where is the extra cash for the increased spending going to come from? An increase in spending from 1.4% of GDP to 2% of GDP would be about 9 billion dollars. That would require one of two things - either an increase in taxes or a cut in services.



Number two: What military threat does Canada actually face? Canada is almost impossible to invade except from the south and the last time there was even the remote possibility that Canada might be invaded was during World War II.



I do agree that in its present form the Canadian military isn't up to much. Part of the reason for that is that the military budget is split three ways, resulting in a situation that leaves Canada with a weak, army, a weak air force, and a weak navy. About three decades ago military historian Gwynne Dyer proposed that Canada focus on just one branch of the services and eliminate the other two. That proposal was not well received and as a result we are left with the current underfunded military.