I feel that the guy next to you, the presenter, had a point, saying that being in NATO is just the cost of doing business. More of a point than your reply acknowledged.
Quite simply: what is the basis for your assumption that Canada is a fully sovereign country?
And this also strikes into the heart of your main argument about NATO being obsolete, not needed. You waved away “to keep the Germans down”, but that’s probably still an important (if not the main) objective: to keep them obedient, or obedient enough. The Germans, but also the Canadians. And the Montenegrins. The Hungarians, the French, the Romanians. And all the rest. Projecting authority by deploying garrisons in the provinces. What could be more natural?
IRRUSSIANALITY 
Great argument, Paul–especially for someone like me, who’s always attempted to convince students that NATO should be dumped .
Are you writing this up for some journal, or maybe a volume of conference papers?
LikeLike
I wrote the talk just for this group. Don’t have any plans for publishing it at this time.
LikeLike
Interesting.
I feel that the guy next to you, the presenter, had a point, saying that being in NATO is just the cost of doing business. More of a point than your reply acknowledged.
Quite simply: what is the basis for your assumption that Canada is a fully sovereign country?
And this also strikes into the heart of your main argument about NATO being obsolete, not needed. You waved away “to keep the Germans down”, but that’s probably still an important (if not the main) objective: to keep them obedient, or obedient enough. The Germans, but also the Canadians. And the Montenegrins. The Hungarians, the French, the Romanians. And all the rest. Projecting authority by deploying garrisons in the provinces. What could be more natural?
LikeLike