Jon Spencer wrote:

> Yea, John, give them thar Canadians a break, eh?  Frankly, I would rather
> that they slaughter the criminals over there, rather than have more come
> over here and slaughter more of us.

We know the feeling. At least we don't give immigration visas to dead applicants
like the INS (more terrorists have crossed from the US to Canada than vice

> Besides, with the mighty armed services that Canada has (a TOTAL of 55,000),
> they couldn't even muster up another 800 to replace those who "rotated" out,

Our total personnel commitment to Afghanistan is slightly over 2,000. The 800 who
rotated out, the 3rd btln Princess Pats plus a few support units from Lord
Strathcona Horse,  did so because their mission -- the destructionof the Taliban
government -- was finished. The other 1200 are still in the theatre.

In any case, we don't need a huge army. We're not a militaristic nation, and
wouldn't have been involved in the Gulf War, Afghanistan, etc., if it weren't for
arm-twisting by the U.S. (And as Stephen has pointed out, no one pointed a gun at
our head, but taking the moral high ground is more expensive for us -- literally,
if, as your government usually does in a great sweep of breathtaking hypocrisy,
wield trade as a weapon while preaching free trade. Given our size, we're an
export-dependent economy and that's our weak spot.)

> so you have little to worry about - it will be a while before Canadians can
> slaughter any more people.  Also, you need not worry that they will invade
> Alaska - you're safe.
> I guess Canada is just dependent upon the US to protect them if anyone is
> ever wacked out enough to attack Canada.

We don't paint targets on our chest like the US has a tendency to do.

> Cretan (I meant it that way) must

Is that really necessary? If so, it's ironic, because he's not from Crete. I
think you meant Cretin, which means an intellectually sub-standard person, and
comes from "Christian" (which is also what Chrétien means in French) -- it was a
pejorative term used by Roman pagans against early Christians.

> believe that we will protect him even after he badmouths us as he does,

Like I said, it's politically expensive for us to take the moral high ground.
You've just proved my point.

> and
> he must depend upon our armed services even though he badmouths them.
> Canada certainly does not have the ability to defend themselves.

The worst threat we face is from the U.S. violating our sovereignty.

> Jon

Marc A. Schindler
Spruce Grove, Alberta, Canada -- Gateway to the Boreal Parkland

"The greater danger for most of us lies not in setting our aim too high and
falling short; but in setting our aim too low, and achieving our mark."
--Michelangelo Buonarroti

Note: This communication represents the informal personal views of the author
solely; its contents do not necessarily reflect those of the author’s employer,
nor those of any organization with which the author may be associated.

///  ZION LIST CHARTER: Please read it at  ///
///      ///

This email was sent to:

Or send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED]

T O P I C A -- Register now to manage your mail!

Reply via email to