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.
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.OK, but does that threaten Canada’s status in NATO?
Nope....our actual NATO fees are up to date.OK, but does that threaten Canada’s status in NATO?
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.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.
You don't have my words quite straight, not a surprise.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.
I absolutely agree a poster's own words best express their opinion.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.
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.I absolutely agree a poster's own words best express their opinion.
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.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.
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.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.
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?Now why don't we get back the purpose of your OP.....or maybe this was the purpose.
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.
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.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.
Unless Canada regroups, they have no intention of reaching that goal - not even in 5 years from now.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
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?