I have a post on this topic over on Albion’s Seedling. It is in part a response to Mr. Rummel’s earlier post here. One commenter thinks I have sullied Canada’s honor. Check it out.
10 thoughts on “Security Free-Riding Among Anglosphere Countries”
Comments are closed.
You lawyers get all the fun with people who want to argue.
James
We post and hope for the best when are wearing our blogger hats. Come on over and join the fracas.
Come on over and join the fracas.
Already did, although it will probably be seen as an attempt to pile on the poor defenceless (heh) Canadians.
James
Canada is not defenceless, really. They have the oceans, and they have us. But I wish they would carry some of the weight. Thank God for their sniper team. Someone is holding up their national honor.
Lex, any truth to the rumor that the Canadian Navy avoided putting to harbor after 9/11 because the Canadian Government decided to downsize the Navy?
Canada’s sullying Canada’s honor.
Very interesting article about how we’re staying home, tourism has dropped across the border.
Bruce, I had not heard that rumor.
Been reading EU Referendum, everyone?
Britain’s defense dept. made the decision in 2000 to side w/the S**** gigolo and their compatriot in vision.
Bonds have been broken. Mother is senile.
…For the UK, though, this is more than problematical as the long-smouldering row over ITAR is progressively increasingly the distance between European and the US, forcing it to make a clear choice between competitive suppliers and rein***forcing its “Europe First” procurement policy. (& are the Scots upset.)
More and more, Britain’s traditional role of forming a “bridge” between the US and Europe coming under strain, a situation which, in my recent paper on UK defence procurement policy – The wrong side of the hill – I likened to standing over the gap between the two halves of Tower Bridge, just as the bridge starts to open….
And it seems the money for Galileo is drying up. Wonder if the Chicoms’ll up their ante?
(didn’t like e i n f o for some reason)
Seems Britain might be, too, via EU Referendum:
…Speaking to the House of Commons Defence Committee, Lord Drayson apparently told MPs that the MoD had dropped the target day of 2012 for the delivery of the first carrier, with the second to follow by 2015. No new date could be set pending “critical” negotiations with defence contractors who were to build the ships.
Predictably, there is more coverage in the Scottish press, since some of the building work for the carriers was to go to Scotland. Hence we have the Scotsman reporting: “Thousands of jobs at risk” as a result of the delay in building the £3.5 billion carriers.
With the existing carriers, HMS Invincible, HMS Illustrious and HMS Ark Royal, which are to be withdrawn from service between 2010 and 2013, what none of the media are pointing out is that, with the running delays, there is a very real risk of the Royal Navy being without any carriers for an indeterminate period….
Yes, that was me. I was trying to make the point that stating that Canada did poorly in WWII was an odd, even absurd generalization to make of one of the victors. “Performed poorly” needs to be put in perspective with the fact that we won, that we liberated the Netherlands and swaths of France.