Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Strategies & Market Trends : Booms, Busts, and Recoveries -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Seeker of Truth who wrote (56524)	11/27/2004 12:16:09 AM
From: Taikun	Respond to of 74559

<Canada somehow has benefitted from the discussions which have taken place or will benefit from the discussions which will take place?> Definitely it should be more involved, to assert its position, say as a mediator. There are a lot of things the US isn't doing that Canada could. Spend the money and take a different tact but don't whine and don't expect freebies. <What burden is Canada refusing to shoulder?> Enough trained defense personnel, with modern equipment, to take care of Canada if the US can't or won't. In an event, maybe the US is stretched. Canada can't come up to speed fast enough. By not having defense, Canada makes whole region riskier. Just like it only takes one kid to miss an important vaccination before disease can return, all nations must play their part. If Canada allocated more funds, the world could be safer. It has the funds. Canada saves a bundle but the scandals squander it. <the Bush administration aggravates every problem to which it turns attention.> All the more reason for Canada to spend a bit more on defense, or some other plan for peace. What Canada is doing (inaction) is excusable by default? Somehow leaving things to the UN (scandals on oil for food make them biased) or the Europeans (France wants to sell nuclear technology to rogue nations) is a solution? It is not, and we all know it. By not spending on defense, Canada is a weakened nation at the mercy of the US. If Canada had defense, it could be more independent of the US, and really go out on a limb, but it is always restrained. Canada always taked this position of dissing the US when they can, and being friendly when it is convenient, but doing nothing in the end. Canadian politicians do not have to worry about defense spending (the US has a big military, the argument goes) so they could be doing a lot more in other areas that match Canada's character. Canadian politicians, because the tension of having defense is replaced by the stress of having to kowtow to the US, whine about the US but take no constructive steps to resolve the issues. One example: If Canada took some of its tax revenues and spent what Japan spent on defense in a constructive way (how about educating Muslim kids so they don't go to the mosque and learn how to be a terrorist, for a start) it would have a position, but it does nothing and still berates the US. Inexcusable! The argument: A.Canada has no enemies, or B. The only enemy one is the US and therefore A1 the US defends Canada from whom?, or B1 the US defends Canada from the US (?!) is flawed. The US defends Canada for itself. Therefore, every enemy of the US is an enemy of Canada.