Hi, Fox.
An allied nation that cannot support an effective military bleeds that alliance, but will continue to be supported. An allied nation that refuses to support an effective military bleeds the alliance, but will continue to be supported.
Why is this true for both?
Well, first and foremost is the treaty alliance between the nation and its fellows.
Secondary, but of greater importance, the nation becomes a terrorist target, if not for open attack, then as a new home base and rally camp. A new Afghanistan. A new liberation battlefield.
The custodian of peace and security holds down a lot of dirty, thankless jobs, few of which are cheap.
We Americans used to say we entered, fought and won wars on behalf of peoples' right to self-determination... apparently that's no longer the case.
What happens when that "self-determination" becomes a fantasy outlook, ripe for the fostering of new terror cells, and the U.S. is called in to cleanup the mess?
...And should we?
Preventive maintenance is the preferred method,
Dan
Current Events » in reply to Another inoperative chestnut
Re: It remains our business, as much as it remains our allies' . . .
The whole thread (80 posts)
- Canadians lose their minds.
- Why does Canada even have an army?
- Inoperative chestnut
- Re: Why buy aircraft?
- Canadian scizophrenia
- Reposting part of the article you posted so maybe everyone will read it this time
- Something to consider
- That's fine
- Cdn military
- Just saying no
- Re: As a Canadian what you say kinda pisses me off
- Then don't come begging to us for airlift capacity
- Re: Americans spend more on military than any country in the world
- Not even to fight Bushs' war?
- Then don't come begging to us for airlift capacity
