• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Still no plans to even come close to NATO obligation

ttwtt78640

Sometimes wrong
DP Veteran
Joined
May 22, 2012
Messages
89,856
Reaction score
53,562
Location
Uhland, Texas
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian

Callen

Supporting Member
DP Veteran
Joined
Nov 9, 2020
Messages
21,410
Reaction score
22,311
Location
Canada
Gender
Female
Political Leaning
Slightly Liberal
Another Trudeau screw up. He needs to go. It's really up to the Conservatives. If they choose Charest as a leader I believe they will win a majority next go 'round, if not we will be stuck with Trudeau until the party gives him the boot. We would likely have a Conservative majority today if they had chosen MacKay last time. Like I say, it's all up to the Conservatives.
 

gbg3

DP Veteran
Joined
Oct 24, 2020
Messages
9,718
Reaction score
7,222
Gender
Female
Political Leaning
Conservative
OK, but does that threaten Canada’s status in NATO?
it absolutely doesn't. I find that to be completely unacceptable (frankly, unethical) that many countries think it's okay to not meet their obligation (year after year after year) but yet they feel solid comfort in the protection they expect from the entitiy.
It's a bit like an individual who decides they don't want to work to support their family because work is not their thing but expects a government to provide all sorts of welfare benefits to the support of their family.
 

gbg3

DP Veteran
Joined
Oct 24, 2020
Messages
9,718
Reaction score
7,222
Gender
Female
Political Leaning
Conservative
Another Trudeau screw up. He needs to go. It's really up to the Conservatives. If they choose Charest as a leader I believe they will win a majority next go 'round if not we will be stuck with Trudeau until the party gives him the boot. We would likely have a Conservative majority today if they had chosen Mackay last time. Like I say, it's all up to the Conservatives.
It's up to the voters. Those who voted for the Liberal party - and now also those who voted for the further left NDP party comprise the reason Trudeau remains in power. You expressed you are pleased about the recent agreement between the two parties, which solidifies Trudeau in power until 2025. That agreement was specifically reached in order to keep the Conservative party out of power - because, well, liberals don't want the Conservative party running the country. Many of them (including you) whine about lousy Trudeau with full knowledge that their vote is highly likely to keep him there.
 

Callen

Supporting Member
DP Veteran
Joined
Nov 9, 2020
Messages
21,410
Reaction score
22,311
Location
Canada
Gender
Female
Political Leaning
Slightly Liberal
It's up to the voters. Those who voted for the Liberal party - and now also those who voted for the further left NDP party comprise the reason Trudeau remains in power. You expressed you are pleased about the recent agreement between the two parties, which solidifies Trudeau in power until 2025. That agreement was specifically reached in order to keep the Conservative party out of power - because, well, liberals don't want the Conservative party running the country. Many of them (including you) whine about lousy Trudeau with full knowledge that their vote is highly likely to keep him there.
You don't have my words quite straight, not a surprise.

I was pleased that we would not be plunged into yet another flash election especially at a time that the Conservative party was without a leader because it would guarantee another Trudeau win. I want him gone and no amount of your twisting my words can change that.
 

gbg3

DP Veteran
Joined
Oct 24, 2020
Messages
9,718
Reaction score
7,222
Gender
Female
Political Leaning
Conservative
You don't have my words quite straight, not a surprise.

I was pleased that we would not be plunged into yet another flash election especially at a time that the Conservative party was without a leader because it would guarantee another Trudeau win. I want him gone and no amount of your twisting my words can change that.
I absolutely agree a poster's own words best express their opinion.

Screenshot 2022-04-08 083916.pngScreenshot 2022-04-08 083518.png
 

Callen

Supporting Member
DP Veteran
Joined
Nov 9, 2020
Messages
21,410
Reaction score
22,311
Location
Canada
Gender
Female
Political Leaning
Slightly Liberal
I absolutely agree a poster's own words best express their opinion.
It's bizarre how you interpret those words. In the first post I expressly say that I am pleased a deal was struck to avoid an election. in the second post, I say I am pleased my vote helped avoid that needless election. I see you very carefully cherry-picked my posts deliberately ignoring the ones where I stress how this colation was needed to avoid a needless and unwanted election. In other posts, I expressly state that I do not support the NDP. At no point do I express any support for Trudeau, quite the contrary. Right now the Conservatives have no leader. A snap election would guarantee a Trudeau majority. This coalition prevents that from happening.

The only upside of your petty attempt to discredit me is that you spent some of your morning trying to find something to "get me with" and it is a swing and a miss. Not to worry I have no doubt my " fan club" will come to cheer you on.

Now why don't we get back the purpose of your OP.....or maybe this was the purpose.
 
Last edited:

gbg3

DP Veteran
Joined
Oct 24, 2020
Messages
9,718
Reaction score
7,222
Gender
Female
Political Leaning
Conservative
It's bizarre how you interpret those words. In the first post I expressly say that I am pleased a deal was struck to avoid an election. in the second post, I say I am pleased my vote helped avoid that needless election. I see you very carefully cherry-picked my posts deliberately ignoring the ones where I stress how this colation was needed to avoid a needless and unwanted election. In other posts, I expressly state that I do not support the NDP. At no point do I express any support for Trudeau, quite the contrary. Right now the Conservatives have no leader. A snap election would guarantee a Trudeau majority. This coalition prevents that from happening.

The only upside of your petty attempt to discredit me is that you spent some of your morning trying to find something to "get me with" and it is a swing and a miss. Not to worry I have no doubt my " fan club" will come to cheer you on.

Now why don't we get back the purpose of your OP.....or maybe this was the purpose.
I never said anything about your opinion regarding avoiding an election. I didn't and don't question that you would like to avoid an election. You made that clear. There was no need for me to "cherry-pick" any comments about you wanting to avoid an election. I've never addressed or disputed your feelings about wanting to avoid an election - why would I? Again, you've made that clear.

I don't know why you would feel anyone was discrediting you by agreeing that the best way to get one's words straight is to not apply any interpretation - just let the person's words say what the person intended to express. I completely agree a person's own words best express their opinions. You indicated I did not have your words straight. Well, the best way for anyone to see the opinions you expressed - was to grab the comments I was remembering. Your words don't need anyone's interpretation. I was happy to take the time to quickly locate the comments which indicated (in your words) you are pleased about the deal. Your comments indicate you are pleased.

I also pointed out you whine about Trudeau being a lousy leader. If you think that's an unfair interpretation, I'd be more than happy to locate your words about Trudeau so as not to misrepresent your opinion of him.
 

Callen

Supporting Member
DP Veteran
Joined
Nov 9, 2020
Messages
21,410
Reaction score
22,311
Location
Canada
Gender
Female
Political Leaning
Slightly Liberal
I don't know why you would feel anyone was discrediting you by agreeing that the best way to get one's words straight is to not apply any interpretation - just let the person's words say what the person intended to express. I completely agree a person's own words best express their opinions.
There we have it in an nutshell. Only I know what I intended to express. If you are not clear on what I mean by my words...feel free to ask but not to interpret.
 

gbg3

DP Veteran
Joined
Oct 24, 2020
Messages
9,718
Reaction score
7,222
Gender
Female
Political Leaning
Conservative
Now why don't we get back the purpose of your OP.....or maybe this was the purpose.
This is a very crazy comment. I started an OP about Canada not meeting their NATO obligation and not planning to for at least 5 years. Countries meeting or not meeting that obligation is a topic which interests/bothers me greatly and I've talked about it often. You chose to join a thread you had absolutely no obligation to join - and somehow you think the purpose of my thread about NATO and Canadian obligations is related to a poster who entered my thread by their choosing?
 

Peter

DP Veteran
Joined
Jun 6, 2020
Messages
8,098
Reaction score
5,589
Location
UK
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
The 2% figure is just a suggestion and is in no way enforceable.
Every country in NATO are free to set their defence spending as they wish.
Canada can spend 0.1% if they want.
 

Rogue Valley

Putin = War Criminal
DP Veteran
Joined
Apr 18, 2013
Messages
81,521
Reaction score
66,474
Location
Barsoom
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
Even in 5 years, it's highly unlikely they'll meet the 2% obligation. And that's actually their plan, with full knowledge they fall short now and still will for the next 5 years.


The was never any NATO spending "obligation". That's a Trump lie.

There is only a "goal" to spend 2% of GPD on Defense by 2024.

This goal was decided at the NATO Wales Summit of 2014

 

Callen

Supporting Member
DP Veteran
Joined
Nov 9, 2020
Messages
21,410
Reaction score
22,311
Location
Canada
Gender
Female
Political Leaning
Slightly Liberal
We are not where we need to be in my view but as long as this is a target or a goal, not a hard commitment, then the matter will be a political matter within each country. It is also important to note that the measurement is not applied in the same manner in each country. For example funding for healthcare for soldiers and veterans is inside the American defense budget but healthcare for Canadian soldiers and veterans is in our healthcare budget. I would like to see a higher number but no way will it fly politically and that includes Conservative governments which never came close to meeting the target.
 

gbg3

DP Veteran
Joined
Oct 24, 2020
Messages
9,718
Reaction score
7,222
Gender
Female
Political Leaning
Conservative
The 2% figure is just a suggestion and is in no way enforceable.
Every country in NATO are free to set their defence spending as they wish.
Canada can spend 0.1% if they want.
I think there needs to be some method of accountability. I don't think it fair to heavy contributors to a common entitiy/goal (NATO) to have tag along participants unwilling to meet their obligation but with an expectation of equal protection. There is already an established fair basis for the obligation per country, with the use of GDP. If several countries remain unwilling to meet their personal obligation - I don't think NATO makes sense for the U.S. (as far and away the biggest contributor) and the U.S. should withdraw. I don't think it should be the obligation of the U.S. to protect nations unwilling to adequately contribute. Ukraine comes to mind. They'd love to be in NATO. But they're not so what we and other NATO countries have provided has limits and has put Ukraine in a position of having to plead for help. That's been a most unfortunate situation for them.
If Canada or any other country elects not to meet their obligation, I think they are no longer acting in good faith toward the agreement. If the rest of the countries are okay with that, so be it - but the U.S. is such a heavy lifter in NATO - that I think it makes sense for the U.S. to pull out unless all participants step up to their obligation.
We, like every other country, need to focus on our own protection first and foremost. And there is nothing wrong with a combined effort for willing and dedicated participants.
 

gbg3

DP Veteran
Joined
Oct 24, 2020
Messages
9,718
Reaction score
7,222
Gender
Female
Political Leaning
Conservative
Top Bottom