Re: [GZG] Grossly Off-topic ANZAC Whining

_______________________________________________
Gzg-l mailing list
Gzg-l@vermouth.csua.berkeley.edu
http://vermouth.csua.berkeley.edu:1337/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/gzg-lThi
s is an interesting point and, whether it means they spend too little or
we spend too much, there are several states in the USA with more
combined firepower than that of Canada or many other nations for that
matter.

This has absolutely no bearing on whether they are good allies or not
and frankly if I ever meet that sniper team from the land of the big red
leaf, I will buy them dinner for the many times they have pulled asses
out of the fire.

It could even be argued the better ally, in spirit, is tha lly that has
nothing to gain or lose and little to offer in the first place, but who
still throws in. Canada and Japan are both good examples of this.

-Eli

-------------- Original message -------------- 
From: Adrian1 <al.ll@tiscali.co.uk> 

> I have no particular bias but why does Canada need a large army? 
> 
> The only country that can effectively invade it in a realistic
timescale 
> is the US and even if Canada devoted 80% of its GNP for the next
decade 
> to the military, it would still be outmatched by several orders of 
> magnitude. It is much more realistic for it to fight a war as a 
> "supporter" than a "fighter". 
> 
> Eire has a similar outlook since the only country that could invade it

> is the UK and the UK can barely guard its own shores let alone invade 
> someone else. 
> 
> It should be remembered that just because a "country" supports
something 
> that another country is doing (for example the war in Iraq), that 
> doesn't mean the population of said country support it. While many 
> governments want to be seen as "good allies", they are normally
elected 
> officials and have to keep an eye on their voters. 
> 
>