U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > World Forums > World
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
Reply Start New Thread
 
Old 06-13-2018, 12:43 AM
 
Location: Alberta, Canada
1,760 posts, read 1,524,771 times
Reputation: 2054

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by Milky Way Resident View Post
Nope
No, but "sort of yes." At the time of the US invasion of Iraq in 2003, there were members of the Canadian Forces serving/training with US troops (basically seconded to the US military) in the US, who were deployed with their US units to Iraq. Very few though (less than 100 in total). So while Canada did not officially send its military to Iraq then, there were a few Canadian military who participated in the invasion, as a result of being seconded to US forces.

I happened to meet a few in a Halifax bar, shortly after they returned. They had a lot of interesting stories about their experiences, and I was happy to buy them a round, to hear what stories they had to tell.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 06-13-2018, 07:05 PM
 
1,955 posts, read 652,282 times
Reputation: 1200
Quote:
Originally Posted by ChevySpoons View Post
No, but "sort of yes." At the time of the US invasion of Iraq in 2003, there were members of the Canadian Forces serving/training with US troops (basically seconded to the US military) in the US, who were deployed with their US units to Iraq. Very few though (less than 100 in total). So while Canada did not officially send its military to Iraq then, there were a few Canadian military who participated in the invasion, as a result of being seconded to US forces.

I happened to meet a few in a Halifax bar, shortly after they returned. They had a lot of interesting stories about their experiences, and I was happy to buy them a round, to hear what stories they had to tell.
I do admit that I wasn't aware of that, but I wouldn't consider it as being representative in this case. Had he gone with Afghanistan or Syria, then I would've agreed as Canada did directly participate in both of those.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-13-2018, 09:38 PM
 
Location: On the Great South Bay
6,654 posts, read 9,192,132 times
Reputation: 5755
Quote:
Originally Posted by 6oo9 View Post
I've read they now represents only 30% of world's GDP, is this true? Should US remain in, or withdraw and make it a G6?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mattks View Post
They represent 32-42% of gdp. 60% of the worlds wealth. Itís a powerful group of friendly countries.
There are 195 countries in the World, more or less.

7 countries control 30 to 40% of the World's GDP
188 countries control 60 to 70% of the World's GDP

I would say that the 7 must be pretty significant.

That is without mentioning any political, military or cultural significance that these nations have.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-14-2018, 02:35 PM
 
Location: White Rock BC
161 posts, read 352,060 times
Reputation: 248
Quote:
Originally Posted by mrconfusion87 View Post
Meh! I think the G20 is more important now! They are more representative of the world as it actually is, not what the NATO West wants it to be! The NATO West's dominance has already started to erode since the late 2000s recession and it's gotten to the point unipolarity is all but dead! And I think it is a GREAT THING! NO SINGLE COUNTRY/BLOC should be allowed to gain too much power to begin with so it's high time the Law of Jante is imposed on global geopolitics!
The G20 has it`s purpose but the reality is that it is a meeting of finance ministers not national leaders. The G20 gets Business section coverage while the G7 is always front page news around the world. Despite what Russia and China may say, the G7 still sets the tone of the world`s economic and financial agenda. Also it is not a NATO Part 2. Japan is not part of NATO and the G7 doesn`t discuss geo-political affairs unless they have economic and/or financial implications on an international scale.


Hypothetically, I agree with you that no small group of countries should hold so much economic and financial clout but we don`t live in a hypothetical world. We do not, under any definition, live in a fair world and the G7 is a clear reflection of that as is the UN Security Council. I would genuinely believe in the tooth fairy before I would believe that this world is a fair one.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.

Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:

Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > World Forums > World
Similar Threads
Follow City-Data.com founder on our Forum or

All times are GMT -6.

© 2005-2017, Advameg, Inc.

City-Data.com - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35 - Top