ELI5 Why Trump Bad For Europe

[Stuart Galbraith]

Ok, so how many of you were fighting in Korea in 1950? Kuwait in 1990?  Vietnam? Iraq 2003? What about Afghanistan? Perhaps there was a brigade of Golani in Afghanistan we never heard about? Even the SIGINT from mount Herman was likely nothing compared to what the Americans were getting out of RAF Troodos.

Israel was a bit player in the cold war, necessarily so due to its location, but just that, a bit player. In fact the only time I recall US forces and Israel were in close proximity during the cold war was Lebanon in 1982, and you damn near came to blows over that because they wouldnt let you take Beirut. Or Suez, when Eisenhower called out the 6th fleet to try and intimidate you into withdrawing from Sinai. Were any of these in US strategic interests? Probably not, no.

Yes, and at the same time they were withholding the 2000lb bombs, they were opening discussions with you about the next generation of combat aircraft you would have access to.

https://www.reuters.com/world/middle-east/blinken-approves-sale-israel-military-equipment-worth-over-20-bln-2024-08-13/

Even when they are pissed off with you, they still cant stop themselves giving you weapons. Its an ideological principle to keep arming Israel, about 30 years after it ceased to be really necessary.  its a policy laid down in stone 60 years ago, and nobody dares revisit it.

This is not a post villifying Israel. Im not even disputing the point that the US SHOULD support Israel, always. im making the point if the US supports Israel, seeing virtulally nothing in return other than a subsidy of its defence industry doing it, then what exactly is the mental block towards supporting Ukraine? Both have a corruption problem. Both have jews it in. What makes Ukrainian jews less important than Israeli ones?

 

[seahawk]

12 hours ago, urbanoid said:

By this interpretation she could have invited every single war refugee from anywhere in the world. Some were in Europe, yes, but after the herzlich wilkommen a giant wave rose from the Middle East.

I'm pretty sure no one (relevant) would have blamed her for not doing it, it was her choice to do so. Why did she do it? Likely because she THOUGHT it would be a popular move.

Considering the criticism she got from her own party, I think the basic idea was that Germany has tu fulfil its obligation and Italy and Hungary were waving refugees straight through anyway. At the time the decision was not wrong. It was wrong that the doors were never closed after that.

[Mighty_Zuk]

13 minutes ago, Stuart Galbraith said:

I have posted the casualty lists time and again about Afghanistan. This doesnt even include the wounded. Britain alone took 7000 wounded, a combination of battle and non battle injuries. No matter how many times, they keep reposting 'Europe isnt carrying its weight, screw Europe'. Well, here they are again. And next time an American calls a European for not doing enough, reflect how many Americans are not in a VA hospital and crippled for life, because Europeans were dumb enough to jump on board the GWOT. This is stupid according to Trumps understanding of the word. Losers would be another one I would guess. Heroes would be my choice.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coalition_casualties_in_Afghanistan

 USA: 2,461^*
 UK: 457
 Canada: 159^*
 France: 90
 Germany: 62
 Italy: 53
 Poland: 44^[2]
 Denmark: 43
 Australia: 41
 Spain: 35^*
 Georgia: 32
 Romania: 27
 Netherlands: 25
 Turkey: 15
 Czech Republic: 14
 New Zealand: 10
 Norway: 10
 Estonia: 9
 Hungary: 7
 Sweden: 5
 Latvia: 4
 Slovakia: 3
 Finland: 2
 Jordan: 2
 Portugal: 2
 South Korea: 2
 Albania: 2
 Belgium: 1

 Bulgaria: 1
 Croatia: 1
 Lithuania: 1
 Montenegro: 1

TOTAL: 3,621

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coalition_casualties_in_Afghanistan

The US has more than twice as many casualties as all other contributing nations combined. Yet NATO's combined population except the US, is almost twice the US population. So the US lost x4 times over, per capita. 

But this isn't a race to see who bleeds out more. Rather, what matters more is how capable is each member of completing hypothetical tasks today. If we assume NATO is supposed to conduct missions far beyond its borders, then NATO is an alliance that projects power on top of self defense. Therefore, every member should at least be able to properly defend themselves regardless of the alliance, and then have some extra capacity to contribute to power projection. Can we really say that every member of NATO is sufficiently capable of self defense? Excluding those far too small to attempt that like the small baltics. 

As it stands, there are very few in NATO outside the US that are pulling their weight in terms of combat capability relative to population size, geography, and economical power. Correct me if I'm wrong, but except the US, everyone has neglected their defense in the past 30-something years. The way forward is massively increased combat capability.  The US should definitely be protecting the frontier nations - Ukraine, Israel, Taiwan, and others should they pop up. But if the European members are unable to alone boost Ukrainian capability to the point of quick decisive victory, then that's a really bad situation to be in. The US should be a secondary partner that boosts Ukraine's capabilities forward, not being the main donor. 

 

[Mighty_Zuk]

21 minutes ago, Stuart Galbraith said:

Ok, so how many of you were fighting in Korea in 1950? Kuwait in 1990?  Vietnam? Iraq 2003? What about Afghanistan? Perhaps there was a brigade of Golani in Afghanistan we never heard about? Even the SIGINT from mount Herman was likely nothing compared to what the Americans were getting out of RAF Troodos.

That's a non-existent argument. It argues nothing and has no point. I can do that as well. Look.

How many NATO troops were there fighting Syria, Egypt, Jordan, and Lebanon during Israel's major wars between 1948-1973? How many were bombing Iran since October 7th? How many are bombing Hezbollah and Hamas? How many were in J&S during the intifada? Yeah also none.

Here you are in the same breath criticizing the US for abandoning Ukraine because Ukraine is a moral, rather than European problem, and anyone with morals should support it, and at the same time saying the west should not be involved in Israel's wars because it's not in Europe. Textbook hypocrisy.

21 minutes ago, Stuart Galbraith said:

Yes, and at the same time they were withholding the 2000lb bombs, they were opening discussions with you about the next generation of combat aircraft you would have access to.

These aircraft won't be here til the 2030's. The munitions we need right now.

21 minutes ago, Stuart Galbraith said:

Even when they are pissed off with you, they still cant stop themselves giving you weapons. Its an ideological principle to keep arming Israel, about 30 years after it ceased to be really necessary.  its a policy laid down in stone 60 years ago, and nobody dares revisit it.

Yeah because Israel is a top contributor to the US and spends over 5% of GDP on defense. Meanwhile European allies are struggling to reach 2%. 

21 minutes ago, Stuart Galbraith said:

This is not a post villifying Israel. Im not even disputing the point that the US SHOULD support Israel, always. im making the point if the US supports Israel, seeing virtulally nothing in return other than a subsidy of its defence industry doing it

If it's not to villify, why are you lying?

21 minutes ago, Stuart Galbraith said:

Both have jews it in. What makes Ukrainian jews less important than Israeli ones?

Didn't expect you to have a "THE JOOS" moment, but here we are.

Edited November 7, 2024 by Mighty_Zuk

[Stuart Galbraith]

Once again, you are missing the point. Its not a critique of Israel. Its a critique of American foreign policy and how it simply doesnt join up or make any sense. I too want your country to be secure. I just dont see it as vital to anyones interest MORE than Ukraine is vital to America and Europes interest. Yet Israel gets all it wants and Ukraine does not, and nobody begrudges it.

it does no good to boast how much Israel spends on its defence, if its defence ONLY for its own narrow self interests. it assists America in absolutely no way.  You are not sailing supercarriers off the Taiwanese coast. You are not trying to pacify Africa. You are not putting troops into Estonia to stop the Russians invading. You are not offering to stamp out ISIS. You are not offering to defend Taiwan. You are not offering to bulwalk Japan. I begrudge none of these things, because they are not in your immediate strategic interest. Yet America will bankroll Israel forever and a day without any complaint despite this. But Ukraine, which self evidently is the gates of Europe, and is perhaps the eventual source of Europe defending itself without any American participation at all, is thrown under the bus. Why? Because reasons!

Now, please, explain to me how these completely contrary parts of American foreign policy make sense, because they dont. You just bombed Iran, something the Americans panicked would be over the top and   not in their interest. And what do they do? They give you some more F15's so you can do a better job next time! Meanwhile in Ukraine its, 'Oh no, we cant possibly give Ukraine long range weapons that might strike Russia, because its dangerous and not in our self interest for Ukraine to win. We are scared that Russia will have a civil war that would be bad!'

Well thats what happens when old farts  run a superpower. I can only console myself that the PRC is unlikely to make better decisions.

 

 

 

[Soren Ras]

Well, this is the FFZ, so according to TN tradition and prophecy, everything will be derailed into pointless discussions at best tangentially connected to the original topic.

What President Trump 2.0 will do with regards to Europe and Ukraine, time will tell. What the results will be for good or ill, may not be clear for a long time.

One slim hope for me at least, is that European media might somehow get a small inkling that their almost total reliance on the same few American MSM outlets (primarily NYT, WAPO, CNN, ABC; NBC, CBS) may in fact not give an entirely adequate picture of American affairs.  The reason, for example, why the Danish population has a near universal negative impression of Donald Trump (or Republicans overall, for that matter) is because the only prism of news they get from the US is reflected almost solely through these media. 

If they begin to broaden their sources and possibly expand the understanding of the US as presented to the public, that would be a very good thing. But I am not holding my breath.

--

Soren

 

[Stuart Galbraith]

49 minutes ago, Mighty_Zuk said:

The US has more than twice as many casualties as all other contributing nations combined. Yet NATO's combined population except the US, is almost twice the US population. So the US lost x4 times over, per capita. 

But this isn't a race to see who bleeds out more. Rather, what matters more is how capable is each member of completing hypothetical tasks today. If we assume NATO is supposed to conduct missions far beyond its borders, then NATO is an alliance that projects power on top of self defense. Therefore, every member should at least be able to properly defend themselves regardless of the alliance, and then have some extra capacity to contribute to power projection. Can we really say that every member of NATO is sufficiently capable of self defense? Excluding those far too small to attempt that like the small baltics. 

As it stands, there are very few in NATO outside the US that are pulling their weight in terms of combat capability relative to population size, geography, and economical power. Correct me if I'm wrong, but except the US, everyone has neglected their defense in the past 30-something years. The way forward is massively increased combat capability.  The US should definitely be protecting the frontier nations - Ukraine, Israel, Taiwan, and others should they pop up. But if the European members are unable to alone boost Ukrainian capability to the point of quick decisive victory, then that's a really bad situation to be in. The US should be a secondary partner that boosts Ukraine's capabilities forward, not being the main donor. 

 

No, no, no. Read what I said. That does NOT include wounded, who are also casualties. Here is two examples.

United Kingdom

Main article: British Forces casualties in Afghanistan since 2001

 

As of 11 October 2015, the British forces have suffered 456 fatalities^[26] and 2,188 wounded in action, another 5,251 have suffered from disease or non-battle injuries. Of these, 404 soldiers were killed as a result of hostile action, while 49 are known to have died either as a result of illness, non-combat injuries or accidents, or have not yet officially been assigned a cause of death pending the outcome of an investigation.^[27] The vast majority of fatalities have taken place since the redeployment of British forces to the Taliban stronghold of Helmand province in 2006, as only five men died between April 2002 and early March 2006.

Canada

Main article: Canadian Forces casualties in Afghanistan

Canada's role in Afghanistan, consisting of operations against the Taliban and other insurgents in southern Afghanistan (Kandahar Province), has resulted in the largest number of fatal casualties for any single Canadian military mission since the Korean War. A total of 157^* members of the Canadian Forces have died in Afghanistan between February 2002 and 29 October 2011. Of these, 132 were due to enemy actions, including 97 due to IEDs or landmines, 22 due to RPG, small arms or mortar fire, and 13 due to suicide bomb attacks. Another six Canadian soldiers died due to friendly fire from their American allies while conducting combat training operations. An additional 19 Canadian soldiers have died in Afghanistan as a result of accidents or non-combat circumstances; 6 in vehicle accidents, 3 unspecified non-combat-related deaths, 3 suicide deaths, 2 in a helicopter crash, 2 from accidental falls, 2 from accidental gunshots and 1 death from an illness.^[32][33] 635 soldiers had been wounded in action and 1,412 received non-battle injuries since April 2002, up to their withdrawal in March 2014.^[34]

^{That is a grand total of 9486 wounded, whether its missing limbs, burns, bullet wounds, ptsd or just eating disorders, that the US Veterans association doesnt have on its books, because America's allies helped their burden.}

^{And that is JUST 2 of the NATO nations. Go and tot up the rest of the NATO contribution and say that its small beer.}

^{What does this prove? Nothing, other than the Trump narrative that so many slavishly copy on this site is simply not true and never has been. But they still chant it, even though the falsehood of it rings loud and clear, because its the narrative, and who ever questions the narrative?}

 

 

 

 

Edited November 7, 2024 by Stuart Galbraith

[Stuart Galbraith]

2 minutes ago, Soren Ras said:

Well, this is the FFZ, so according to TN tradition and prophecy, everything will be derailed into pointless discussions at best tangentially connected to the original topic.

What President Trump 2.0 will do with regards to Europe and Ukraine, time will tell. What the results will be for good or ill, may not be clear for a long time.

One slim hope for me at least, is that European media might somehow get a small inkling that their almost total reliance on the same few American MSM outlets (primarily NYT, WAPO, CNN, ABC; NBC, CBS) may in fact not give an entirely adequate picture of American affairs.  The reason, for example, why the Danish population has a near universal negative impression of Donald Trump (or Republicans overall, for that matter) is because the only prism of news they get from the US is reflected almost solely through these media. 

If they begin to broaden their sources and possibly expand the understanding of the US as presented to the public, that would be a very good thing. But I am not holding my breath.

--

Soren

 

We already know what Trump is going to do with Ukraine. He already gave us a preview.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-50886437

The White House sought to freeze aid to Ukraine just 91 minutes after President Trump spoke to President Volodymyr Zelensky by phone in July, a newly-released government email has revealed.

The email, telling the Pentagon to "hold off", was sent by a senior White House official.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-67637679

Senate Republicans have blocked a move to pass an aid bill for Ukraine after failing to secure border compromises they sought in exchange.

The $110bn (£87.3bn) package included $61bn for Ukraine, as well as funds for Israel and aid for Gaza.

The White House has warned that US funds for Ukraine could soon run out.

A Ukrainian official said that failure to secure more US aid would mean a "very high possibility" that the war will be lost to Russia.

 

Why are we still debating this, as if there is a possibly he might just surprise us?

[sunday]

10 minutes ago, Soren Ras said:

One slim hope for me at least, is that European media might somehow get a small inkling that their almost total reliance on the same few American MSM outlets (primarily NYT, WAPO, CNN, ABC; NBC, CBS) may in fact not give an entirely adequate picture of American affairs.  The reason, for example, why the Danish population has a near universal negative impression of Donald Trump (or Republicans overall, for that matter) is because the only prism of news they get from the US is reflected almost solely through these media. 

True that. Even the less Leftist media here in Spain present a image of Trump that is much in line with the positions of a Joy Reid.

 

[urbanoid]

On average support for Trump is higher among the new EU/NATO states, despite the liberal media and their attitudes (at least here) being largely a copy-paste of the American ones.

Most likely it would have been higher if it wasn't for the perception of his Ukraine stance and that 'he will sell us out to Russia', as this is what most likely puts people off him, not the liberal talking points.

https://x.com/Valen10Francois/status/1853800876860723502

 

[Mighty_Zuk]

11 minutes ago, Stuart Galbraith said:

Once again, you are missing the point. Its not a critique of Israel. Its a critique of American foreign policy and how it simply doesnt join up or make any sense. I too want your country to be secure. I just dont see it as vital to anyones interest MORE than Ukraine is vital to America and Europes interest. Yet Israel gets all it wants and Ukraine does not, and nobody begrudges it.

Of course Ukraine should receive more, but your argument consists of throwing Israel and Taiwan under the bus to make room for Ukraine, when in fact all 3 should receive aid. 

Your understanding of the situation is also skewed by the fact that you entirely ignore the starting position of Israel and Ukraine. Israel's starting point in October 7th was clear military dominance over everyone in a 2,000km radius. It has fought largely on reserves it was competent enough to secure over many years before the war, so that aid provided during the war will mostly go toward post-war replenishment and not for immediate operational needs. Much of it has also been contracted before the war and simply expedited.

But in that time, Israel faced western and American requests to limit its operations, submit in some fronts, and even had sanctions imposed on it. It also had to endure western financing for Hamas, as well as arms embargoes, including one from the UK. It has faced more opposition than it has seen support, and much of the antagonistic rhetoric and actions vs Israel came from Europe itself.

Ukraine faces basically the same thing, minus the sanctions. It too is asked to limit its operations, it too is asked to concede in some fronts. Israel and Ukraine are facing the same things, on different scales. One tends to forget that when he intentionally ignores factual information on one of them.

But Ukraine started the war in a hopeless position, and western aid may not allow it to restore its original borders, but it at least ensured Ukraine's survival.

The aid package passed a few months ago for Israel and Ukraine, included over $60 billion for Ukraine. The package Israel received included several billions for aid to Gaza. Imagine a US administration splitting the aid to Ukraine so that $20 billion of it went to Russia instead.

22 minutes ago, Stuart Galbraith said:

it does no good to boast how much Israel spends on its defence, if its defence ONLY for its own narrow self interests.

Israel only has to defend itself and spends 5%. Europe has to project power but fails to spend the average 2% and can't defend itself on its own. So yeah, of course there's room for criticism. Lots of it.

23 minutes ago, Stuart Galbraith said:

it assists America in absolutely no way.

That's a lie and you know it.

24 minutes ago, Stuart Galbraith said:

You are not sailing supercarriers off the Taiwanese coast. You are not trying to pacify Africa. You are not putting troops into Estonia to stop the Russians invading. You are not offering to stamp out ISIS. You are not offering to defend Taiwan. You are not offering to bulwalk Japan.

But Israel does bomb Iran, it does the heavy lifting vs the Houthis, it does pacify Syria, all of which are at least as much a threat to Europe as they are to Israel. it does provide and expedite arms to Europe to backfill for aid to Ukraine. And Israel did actually do a lot of work vs ISIS when they existed.

This is a repeat of the same old mantra "how can you help us while we ignore your problems". Are you really expecting Israel to send troops to fight Russia when half of Europe has an arms embargo vs Israel, let antisemitism run rampant, and accuse it of war crimes? I'm not talking even about the audacity to ask for assistance from a country that spends more than double the average European country WHILE fighting a 7 front war.

 

39 minutes ago, Stuart Galbraith said:

Now, please, explain to me how these completely contrary parts of American foreign policy make sense, because they dont. You just bombed Iran, something the Americans panicked would be over the top and   not in their interest. And what do they do? They give you some more F15's so you can do a better job next time! Meanwhile in Ukraine its, 'Oh no, we cant possibly give Ukraine long range weapons that might strike Russia, because its dangerous and not in our self interest for Ukraine to win. We are scared that Russia will have a civil war that would be bad!'

Failure to understand that US policy on Israel and Ukraine is actually very consistent and nearly identical, is exactly why you're making intentionally wrong comments.

[urbanoid]

16 minutes ago, Mighty_Zuk said:

Failure to understand that US policy on Israel and Ukraine is actually very consistent and nearly identical, is exactly why you're making intentionally wrong comments.

There's very little protest in the US against financing/arming Israel plus there's fewer restrictions on weapons usage and 'ooga booga muh escalation' whining.

[Soren Ras]

46 minutes ago, Stuart Galbraith said:

We already know what Trump is going to do with Ukraine. He already gave us a preview.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-50886437

The White House sought to freeze aid to Ukraine just 91 minutes after President Trump spoke to President Volodymyr Zelensky by phone in July, a newly-released government email has revealed.

 

Really?  Your conclusion on what Trump might do when he takes office in 2025 is based on a BBC report on what he said to Zelensky in July 2019?   

Because nothing significant happened in between these dates, I guess...

Quote

Why are we still debating this, as if there is a possibly he might just surprise us?

We'll agree to disagree, then. 

Have a great day.

--

Soren

[Rick]

2 hours ago, Stuart Galbraith said:

Why? Why it Europes tarbaby anymore than Poland was Europes tarbaby? Or for that matter, why is it that you dont want any share of our tarbaby, when Eruope spent 20 years fumbling with yours in Afghanistan? You folks say Europe doesnt carry its weight, maybe you should cast an eye on the Afghan casualty lists one day. That is of course if that kind of thing interests you at all.

For 25 years ive had on this grate site Americans pointing to Neville Chamberlain and Britains role in starting WW2. Very well, Ill take that on the chin. So whats bailing your country out from its responsiblity of sitting on its hands when Ukraine could have been saved? Why are you above the fray, what makes you country so special that you can allow Democracies to go under the wheel with zero fucks given? Why exactly are you so precious about sending military equipment that, another 5-20 years from now is going to be fodder for the scrapman or parked outside a VA center? What exactly, we Europeans want to know, is the exact sodding problem here? Pride, or cynicism dressed up as wisdom?

For a Christian Rick, I suggest you go back and read the section in the bible about the Good Samaritan.  if you wouldnt stand idly by when you see a man lying in the gutter after being mugged, or a woman getting gang raped, why do you suddenly think its ok when its a nation of 40 million people you are abandoning? What precisely  makes Ukraine less worthy of saving than Israel, which you have stood behind in every fray with an unlimited line of credit?

And that is why I dont get involved in these kind of discussions on the FFZ anymore. Because im truly tired of trying to talk sense into people that really are old enough and wise enough to know better than reguritate this 'fuck you jack, im alright' bullshit. 

I truly cannot work out what the fuck is the matter with you people. You remind me of the French before WW2, and we all remember how well THAT turned out.

 

 

 

"For a Christian Rick, I suggest you go back and read the section in the bible about the Good Samaritan."

Galatians 6:1-5 would be the more honest an accurate Biblical meaning you are searching for. In your post the meaning of the Good Samaritan would be the European N.A.T.O. members as the priest and Levite with the U.S. as the Samaritan. There is also a deeper historical meaning in this parable involving the victim, the robbers, the priest and Levite, and the Samaritan that applies today. 

All the evil, secular governments were first described in the Bible in 1 Samuel 10-18. This passage is accurate today as it was then.  Europe created  Communism, Fascism, and Nazism. It is Europe's responsibility to solve them which it hasn't done, and cannot due,  since it abandoned Christianity and Capitalism.  

I don't have much of a problem of the U.S. sending older military equipment, as long as the old stuff is replaces with newer stuff, or even allowing "Flying Tiger" volunteers to the Ukraine. But, with the U.S. in deep financial debt and in the wise words of her first President, the U.S. would be wise to avoid (expensive) permanent foreign entanglements.  

 

 

[urbanoid]

55 minutes ago, Stuart Galbraith said:

Why are we still debating this, as if there is a possibly he might just surprise us?

You 'know' what he's going to do while in reality he may not even know that himself yet.

[Rick]

14 hours ago, rmgill said:

Kisin makes a good points. 

 

 

Stuart, read this post, especially number 8.

[Mighty_Zuk]

32 minutes ago, urbanoid said:

There's very little protest in the US against financing/arming Israel plus there's fewer restrictions on weapons usage and 'ooga booga muh escalation' whining.

I invite you to look into pro-Hamas protests on university campuses and across major cities across the US and Europe. These are by no means "little".

Ukraine aid sees opposition from far-rightoids.

Israel aid sees opposition from far-leftoids. 

I also invite you to read a bit in the Israel-Iran-Proxies conflict thread and see how many times I highlighted the US's pressure on Israel to de-escalate and attempts to strong-arm it into it.

There is however lower potential for the US to pressure Israel because it does not send to Israel weapons that are under such usage restrictions in the first place, and Israel has a far higher defense production independence than Ukraine.

[Ol Paint]

1 hour ago, Stuart Galbraith said:

No, no, no. Read what I said. That does NOT include wounded, who are also casualties. Here is two examples.

United Kingdom

Main article: British Forces casualties in Afghanistan since 2001

 

As of 11 October 2015, the British forces have suffered 456 fatalities^[26] and 2,188 wounded in action, another 5,251 have suffered from disease or non-battle injuries. Of these, 404 soldiers were killed as a result of hostile action, while 49 are known to have died either as a result of illness, non-combat injuries or accidents, or have not yet officially been assigned a cause of death pending the outcome of an investigation.^[27] The vast majority of fatalities have taken place since the redeployment of British forces to the Taliban stronghold of Helmand province in 2006, as only five men died between April 2002 and early March 2006.

Canada

Main article: Canadian Forces casualties in Afghanistan

Canada's role in Afghanistan, consisting of operations against the Taliban and other insurgents in southern Afghanistan (Kandahar Province), has resulted in the largest number of fatal casualties for any single Canadian military mission since the Korean War. A total of 157^* members of the Canadian Forces have died in Afghanistan between February 2002 and 29 October 2011. Of these, 132 were due to enemy actions, including 97 due to IEDs or landmines, 22 due to RPG, small arms or mortar fire, and 13 due to suicide bomb attacks. Another six Canadian soldiers died due to friendly fire from their American allies while conducting combat training operations. An additional 19 Canadian soldiers have died in Afghanistan as a result of accidents or non-combat circumstances; 6 in vehicle accidents, 3 unspecified non-combat-related deaths, 3 suicide deaths, 2 in a helicopter crash, 2 from accidental falls, 2 from accidental gunshots and 1 death from an illness.^[32][33] 635 soldiers had been wounded in action and 1,412 received non-battle injuries since April 2002, up to their withdrawal in March 2014.^[34]

^{That is a grand total of 9486 wounded, whether its missing limbs, burns, bullet wounds, ptsd or just eating disorders, that the US Veterans association doesnt have on its books, because America's allies helped their burden.}

^{And that is JUST 2 of the NATO nations. Go and tot up the rest of the NATO contribution and say that its small beer.}

^{What does this prove? Nothing, other than the Trump narrative that so many slavishly copy on this site is simply not true and never has been. But they still chant it, even though the falsehood of it rings loud and clear, because its the narrative, and who ever questions the narrative?}

 

 

 

 

Suggest you read the rest of the Wikipedia article you cited.*

"Since the start of U.S. military operations in Afghanistan through mid-2019, nearly 2,400 American servicemembers have died.^[164] Additionally, 20,719 U.S. service members have been wounded in hostile action, according to the Defense Department."

Stop waving the bloody shirt.  As Mighty_Zuk said, the point isn't who had more wounded or had more dead.  It is who has been carrying the load.  You are mad that the Trump refers to the EU as a rival.  But that's what they are--economic and political rivals.  Sometimes our objectives align, sometimes they don't.  But the EU (and you) want all the economic and political benefits of that union--including engaging in monopolistic tactics to drive US companies under--while demanding the US provide the common defense.

Doug

* And don't act offended when you put up a list of numbers and people use those numbers against your argument.

[Rick]

1 hour ago, Soren Ras said:

Well, this is the FFZ, so according to TN tradition and prophecy, everything will be derailed into pointless discussions at best tangentially connected to the original topic.

What President Trump 2.0 will do with regards to Europe and Ukraine, time will tell. What the results will be for good or ill, may not be clear for a long time.

One slim hope for me at least, is that European media might somehow get a small inkling that their almost total reliance on the same few American MSM outlets (primarily NYT, WAPO, CNN, ABC; NBC, CBS) may in fact not give an entirely adequate picture of American affairs.  The reason, for example, why the Danish population has a near universal negative impression of Donald Trump (or Republicans overall, for that matter) is because the only prism of news they get from the US is reflected almost solely through these media. 

If they begin to broaden their sources and possibly expand the understanding of the US as presented to the public, that would be a very good thing. But I am not holding my breath.

--

Soren

 

First paragraph, oh how true. 🚾

[urbanoid]

10 minutes ago, Mighty_Zuk said:

I invite you to look into pro-Hamas protests on university campuses and across major cities across the US and Europe. These are by no means "little".

Ukraine aid sees opposition from far-rightoids.

Israel aid sees opposition from far-leftoids. 

I also invite you to read a bit in the Israel-Iran-Proxies conflict thread and see how many times I highlighted the US's pressure on Israel to de-escalate and attempts to strong-arm it into it.

There is however lower potential for the US to pressure Israel because it does not send to Israel weapons that are under such usage restrictions in the first place, and Israel has a far higher defense production independence than Ukraine.

Those aren't particularly important politically, in the US that is. The DNC doesn't have to give any particular shit about them, as what are they going to do? Go to the Republicans?

Partially agree about the rest. There's no strong opposition in GOP to helping Israel in general, it has been a bipartisan issue in the first place since... a long time ago. Ukraine doesn't have that luxury, it's far easier to find Rs willing (and even advocating) to throw them under the bus, although they are definitely a minority. Still, US rightwingers wanting to halt aid to Israel exist mostly online, the ones wanting to throw Ukraine under the bus are in the Congress.

Definitly agree about the US pressuring Israel here and there since... the 1950s at least and about Israel being able to withstand said pressure much better than Ukraine, though I wouldn't attribute it to just the degree of defense production independence.

[glenn239]

6 hours ago, Stuart Galbraith said:

 

I truly cannot work out what the fuck is the matter with you people. You remind me of the French before WW2, and we all remember how well THAT turned out.

Looked to me in 2012 that NATO policy in Ukraine was going to blow up in NATO's face.  You wanted to go full steam ahead and laughed at all the risks, and now that it's a fiasco, I see you lashing out at other posters rather than taking a moment to ask yourself whether it was ever realistic to ask average American families to roll the nuclear dice for a country on the other side of the planet of no consequence to the USA.

 

[Wouter2]

14 hours ago, Mighty_Zuk said:

So far:

[...]

Trump favors deal with Russia. Europeans favor war of attrition.

 

 

I don't think Europeans favor a war of attrition. What they do not want though, is a peace forced on Ukraine that is a de-facto surrender. Take a look at what Urbanoid posted regarding the supposed Istanbul peace agreement: Ukraine's army limited to max 50.000 men, limits on armament, ceding large areas to Russia, paying repairs (!), political reforms in favour of Russian speakers,...

It would create a "Vichy-Ukraine" (Lviv-Ukraine?) that's a vassal state for the Russians that they could also occupy completely whenever they please.

So if Trump says he will create peace within 24 hours, does he mean he will make Ukraine surrender? If not, what will he do if Putin says nyet to his peace plan if its more along the lines of Korea 1953?

I think most Europeans assume that if Ukraine de-facto surrenders the Russians, emboldened by their success, will continue to the next target, Moldavia and/or the Baltics.

So only in that case is the alternative of a continued war of attrition semi-favorable, in that even the Russians aren't capable of waging 2 wars of agression at once and they are still losing IFV's and other armoured vehicles en masse. If they utterly defeat Ukraine and neuter its army by 2025, the entire thing can be set against the Baltics by 2026 or 2027.

 

If Trump actually manages to end the war along the lines of Korea 1953, most Europeans would applaud him I think, even if they otherwise dislike him.

But that would be very difficult to reach. Putin probably feels like he is winning (unless the damage tot the economy is starting to be felt in the Kremlin) and Zelensky also may not want to go along.

Edited November 7, 2024 by Wouter2

[Mighty_Zuk]

2 minutes ago, Wouter2 said:

I don't think Europeans favor a war of attrition. What they do not want though, is a peace forced on Ukraine that is a de-facto surrender. Take a look at what Urbanoid posted regarding the supposed Istanbul peace agreement: Ukraine's army limited to max 50.000 men, limits on armament, ceding large areas to Russia, paying repairs (!), political reforms in favour of Russian speakers,...

It would create a "Vichy-Ukraine" (Lviv-Ukraine?) that's a vassal state for the Russians that they could also occupy completely whenever they please.

So if Trump says he will create peace within 24 hours, does he mean he will make Ukraine surrender? If not, what will he do if Putin says nyet to his peace plan if its more along the lines of Korea 1953?

I think most Europeans assume that if Ukraine de-facto surrenders the Russians, emboldened by their success, will continue to the next target, Moldavia and/or the Baltics.

So only in that case is the alternative of a continued war of attrition semi-favorable, in that even the Russians aren't capable of waging 2 wars of agression at once and they are still losing IFV's and other armoured vehicles en masse. If they utterly defeat Ukraine and neuter its army by 2025, the entire thing can be set against the Baltics by 2026 or 2027.

Trump cannot bring peace in a matter of days either way. But as a politician, he can offer a way out, a sort of terms of surrender to every hostile nation, currently being Russia and Iran. If they accept, great. If not, then he can say he tried diplomacy and now it's time to make peace through JDAMs.

[rmgill]

How many decades did we go on in the Middle East and Trump came in and got an agreement between the Sunni Nations and Israel in ways that Clinton, Carter and many others could not do? 

He's a deal maker, NOT a politician. Stop making category errors. 

Edited November 7, 2024 by rmgill

[glenn239]

2 hours ago, Wouter2 said:

I think most Europeans assume that if Ukraine de-facto surrenders the Russians, emboldened by their success, will continue to the next target, Moldavia and/or the Baltics.

I get the impression that most Canadians think nothing of the sort.