Stuart Galbraith Posted January 15 Posted January 15 Once again, you say quite a lot without saying anything. The US is threatened if its allies and markets were threatened. This is self evident, whethers its the price of oil and gas, or just markets it likes to sell stuff not being there anymore. There is a cost you pay, even as you price yourself as remaining aloof, just as you found in WW2. I warrant you didnt sell many Packards to France under German occupation after all. Also ICBM's, first use of those could be inititated in a European war, even from remarkably low troop numbers. So yes, still well within the capacity for a European war to impact on American shores. It did in WW1, it did in WW2, and it takes an intensely stuborn and unreflective mind to believe WW3 wont either. The Russians have even been so kind as to remind you of it. Thats why the US made it its cold war policy to deter ALL aggression in Europe. The world has not changed since the cold war, its just got more dangerous. Doubling down? No, I dont expect you to admit you dont know what the hell you are talking about, that rarely happens within these hallowed halls.
rmgill Posted January 15 Posted January 15 5 hours ago, Sinistar said: way to double down on a losing bet Forget it, he's rolling.
Stuart Galbraith Posted January 15 Posted January 15 And as always Ryan, you arent listening. You werent listening in 2001 either, and clearly, looking back on it, you really should have.
Murph Posted January 15 Posted January 15 What we SHOULD have done in 2001 is go in make a desolation and call it a peace, then kill every Saudi, Qatari, and other Derka Derka that funded, supported, encouraged the terrorists. Then leave well enough alone, and not have Bush Jr, decide to invade Iraq for Lord Knows whatever reason he really had.
RETAC21 Posted January 15 Posted January 15 10 hours ago, Stuart Galbraith said: Akin to the status of the US bases in the UK then. If servicemen murdered a British subject on one, they would be subject to American justice, not American. And they have tried to stretch this to include outside the bases, as we saw when one military spouse accidentally killed a motorcyclist outside Menwith hill IIRC, and then did a runner to the US before she was arrested. We caused Palomares? My God, I didnt know the Empire was so effective No, way more permissive, and Palomares is an illustration, as far as the government knew (or declared), the B-52s were going to the NATO airfield at Gibraltar, meaning they had no knowledge of Chrome Dome flights whose tracks overflew N. Spain (including a refueling track around Saragossa) going in and S. Spain (with refuelers from Moron) going out. Storing nuclear weapons without telling the locals goes without saying.
RETAC21 Posted January 15 Posted January 15 1 hour ago, Murph said: What we SHOULD have done in 2001 is go in make a desolation and call it a peace, then kill every Saudi, Qatari, and other Derka Derka that funded, supported, encouraged the terrorists. Then leave well enough alone, and not have Bush Jr, decide to invade Iraq for Lord Knows whatever reason he really had. But we were told by the US that WE needed to do that. 2003 calling: "Rocky Davis Xenophobic Free-Speech Squasher posted 25 Aug 2003 05:36 Here's the deal: An anti-western nation in the hottest spot in the world is ruled by a murdering thug and his sons. It is known that terrorists are allowed to train on that nation's soil. It is also known that money from that nation has both directly and indirectly benefited known international terrorist organizations. The UN determined (long ago) the existence of an extensive WMD program in Iraq. Destroying the WMD program and providing proof to UN inspectors was a term of the 1991 ceasefire. Iraq has continually played a "shell game" with the inspectors and finally kicked them out - and answered to nobody about compliance with the terms of the ceasefire. Add all that up and throw in a few well-known terrorist "hits" from the past few years and you can see why overthrowing the Iraqi regime helped everybody on their "target list" - which included most NATO nations. I understand that lack of support from non-British allies was because everybody wanted to wait for a UN mandate. However, with the Iraq's primary business partners (Russia and France) both able to block any UN action with regards to Iraq, UN support of Allied intentions was dead from the start - thereby necessitating unilateral action by those wanting to castrate a known rapist rather than to wait and try to do it after having been raped. Every nation on earth will benefit from the removal of Hussein. The French and the Russians have lost a business partner, but even they will benefit – as Middle East extremist and terrorist groups have already gained footholds in each of those nations and have already carried out operations against both as well." That didn't age well...
RETAC21 Posted January 15 Posted January 15 20 hours ago, rmgill said: Is there a language problem here? Did I not write "non NATO direct alliance"? Are you not understanding negatives or something here? It more relates to how I sense that they' actually appreciate our efforts. Good luck defending when your own Eurotrash won't have the ability to do so ANYHOW without US assistance. hmmmkay, if you say so.
Murph Posted January 15 Posted January 15 Again, we should take a page from the British playbook: Butcher and Bolt. Make a desolation and call it a peace.
rmgill Posted January 15 Posted January 15 4 minutes ago, RETAC21 said: hmmmkay, if you say so. Clearly you’re just being disingenuous and trolling. You directly assert I wrote something I clearly didn’t write.
RETAC21 Posted January 15 Posted January 15 4 minutes ago, rmgill said: Clearly you’re just being disingenuous and trolling. You directly assert I wrote something I clearly didn’t write. Have you read the treaties you speak about yet, so you can support your claims about allies not meeting their commitments? Have you looked the composition of the European forces in 2024 and the forces the US has in Europe yet, so you can show how the US is defending Europe while Europeans are not? Do you know the geographic limits of NATO yet? Do you know which are the national strategies of the countries you call "Eurotrash", what are the menaces they face and what does the US contribute to defend against those menaces? These are just a few of the things you have demonstrated that you don't know, so I can hardly troll you by pointing out your lack of knowledge.
seahawk Posted January 15 Posted January 15 I think our US posters know all they need to know. NATO is a bad deal for the US. So either it becomes a great deal for the US and NATO is making money for the US, or it is time to end this.
RETAC21 Posted January 15 Posted January 15 23 minutes ago, seahawk said: I think our US posters know all they need to know. NATO is a bad deal for the US. So either it becomes a great deal for the US and NATO is making money for the US, or it is time to end this. Here, I will help
rmgill Posted January 15 Posted January 15 1 hour ago, RETAC21 said: Have you read the treaties you speak about yet, so you can support your claims about allies not meeting their commitments? Is the obligation 2% of GDP or not?
urbanoid Posted January 15 Posted January 15 8 minutes ago, Murph said: It should be a hard 5%. The US hasn't been spending 'hard 5%' for decades at this point. Spikes (not reaching 5% either) in the last 30 years were mostly about years long 'COIN bullshit' (which the Europeans participated in as well) and that's something that degraded both US and European conventional capabilities (though more in case of European countries than the US, due to smaller budgets it was more of a 'either/or' situation). IMO consistent 2% over decades would have been perfectly fine* for Europe, even now with all the underspending in recent decades there are more than enough capabilities and forces in Europe to e.g. deter Russia or crack some heads in the Middle East, but the Americans seem to forget (or ignore) that 'Europe', even the 'EU', is not a country. There are 30 governments, 30 ministries of defense, 30 general staffs, 30 militaries etc. *except, as I said, Europe is not a country, US presence is generally needed for leadership more than actual contribution of troops, as vast majority of forces involved in 'the situation' would have been European anyway (as it would have been during the Cold War in case it went hot). The fact of the US being in position of leadership during the crisis/war and 'some' US involvement would also push some countries to contribute where otherwise they could be tempted to stay out - US presence makes it less likely for the enemy to use the nuclear card, whether as threats or as e.g. some 'deescalating nuclear strike'.
Sinistar Posted January 15 Posted January 15 1 hour ago, urbanoid said: but the Americans seem to forget (or ignore) that 'Europe', even the 'EU', is not a country. There are 30 governments, 30 ministries of defense, 30 general staffs, 30 militaries etc. *except, as I said, Europe is not a country, i do not know which americans you refer to in a similar way i argue what you are describing but with different conclusions this is why nato was overextended if incoherent to begin with in post ussr / warsaw pact aligned world far from a unified organ, nato is schismatic consisting of individual member states with their own needs and policy goals and it shows interestingly at least two of the states that nato planners wanted to integrate - slovakia and hungary- see the war in ukraine much differently than london, brussels or paris or washington, resist arming ukraine, want to conclude the whole thing with increasingly more member states now sending signals that they are seeing the situation in a similar way with recent reports of hungary and slovakia being very upset at allegations of ukraine attempting to destroy their energy pipeline with russia, they seem to be in no mood for ukraine at all but they are part of nato and they have the power of veto and so now that is what nato got - not seeing or ignoring the very warnings described and explained about post ussr societies joining nato back in the 1990s- it was predicted with members here ignoring suppressing or denying that and the rest of the alliance to varying degrees having a different sense of going down with the ship to varying degrees and their appetite for the risk exposure turkey is almost a different animal entirely and is going of in its own direction within its geo political areas of interest and you are not going to rely on them to back nato in a war with russia or in support of ukraine in theory the soviet union and the forces of the warsaw pact were planning to exploit this lack of unified or common command in nato if they fought world war III - isolating weaker or junior members from the stronger and concluding separate peace arrangements with each one as the alliance began to fracture one by one if things were getting to rough in theory anyway
urbanoid Posted January 16 Posted January 16 Just now, Sinistar said: i do not know which americans you refer to in a similar way i argue what you are describing but with different conclusions this is why nato was overextended if incoherent to begin with in post ussr / warsaw pact aligned world far from a unified organ, nato is schismatic consisting of individual member states with their own needs and policy goals and it shows interestingly at least two of the states that nato planners wanted to integrate - slovakia and hungary- see the war in ukraine much differently than london, brussels or paris or washington, resist arming ukraine, want to conclude the whole thing with increasingly more member states now sending signals that they are seeing the situation in a similar way with recent reports of hungary and slovakia being very upset at allegations of ukraine attempting to destroy their energy pipeline with russia, they seem to be in no mood for ukraine at all but they are part of nato and they have the power of veto and so now that is what nato got - not seeing or ignoring the very warnings described and explained about post ussr societies joining nato back in the 1990s- it was predicted with members here ignoring suppressing or denying that and the rest of the alliance to varying degrees having a different sense of going down with the ship to varying degrees and their appetite for the risk exposure turkey is almost a different animal entirely and is going of in its own direction within its geo political areas of interest and you are not going to rely on them to back nato in a war with russia or in support of ukraine in theory the soviet union and the forces of the warsaw pact were planning to exploit this lack of unified or common command in nato if they fought world war III - isolating weaker or junior members from the stronger and concluding separate peace arrangements with each one as the alliance began to fracture one by one if things were getting to rough in theory anyway Theory may very well be what it is, but in practice during the Cold War no one was ever going to wonder whether/how Turkey will participate in the defense of Western Europe (and nothing has changed in that matter). With all respect to Slovakia and Hungary, nobody is going to ask them for their opinion whether/how e.g. Baltic States, Finland or Poland should be defended and what should be the NATO posture there. Things were also very complicated during the Cold War with far more important countries, like France, which left military structures of NATO and only remained in political ones, they only rejoined the military ones... somewhat recently, after 2000. Neither Europe nor the American Empire* is interested in resurgent Russian Empire/USSR 2.0, so eastward expansion was only natural. Not admitting postcommunist countries between Russia and Western Europe would have resulted in a grey area of security and possibly in their return to the 'Russian sphere' a.k.a Warsaw Pact 2.0. The countries in question absolutely wanted to join too, as they wanted to avoid this exact scenario. What was left in said 'grey area of security' was Ukraine and we can see the effects today. *additionally the US wants to make any strategic level European-Russian cooperation impossible (so, like the countries between Germany and Russia), as that could result in a challenge to the hegemony of the American Empire
Sinistar Posted January 16 Posted January 16 (edited) 19 minutes ago, urbanoid said: With all respect to Slovakia and Hungary, nobody is going to ask them for their opinion whether/how e.g. Baltic States, Finland or Poland should be defended and what should be the NATO posture there. as nato members they have a vote if you say that does not matter than that a symptom of the fragmented nature of nato it is not a unified front which is the point all along and so it should be repeated again these problems were not necessarily unexpected as they were pointed out 30 years ago, including the ethnic distribution and makeup of eastern europe and how that would figure into it differently- ukraine for example is not a culturally or ethnically pure state consisting of ukrainians; the fact of a significant russian speaking or ethnic russian population (also poles, romanians etc) is basically suppressed or glossed over, never mind the dirty little ethnic civil war which occurred there the discourse about this fiasco is almost entirely ignored- you will not hear jens stoltenberg mention any of it, nor macron nor joe biden nor anyone from berlin to london since that is too complicated a movie to put on their public- it is simply 'ukrainians against russians' and that is all there is to it or it is either maga fake news or the ruzzians running interference again like they did in the 2016 election that is the pattern, that is the quality of public discussion going on in the united states no thanks we voted that out and so i see no real value in this organization from the standpoint the defense of the united states or broadly the advancement of american goals- quite the opposite. it is all wretch and no vomit. it never gets there and we can take care of ourselves without that i would argue europe should also seriously reconsider how much each state should want to trade their own self interests for the benefit of a few policy wonks in their respective capitals and play these games with their security but as we can see many of them see incapable of doing otherwise Edited January 16 by Sinistar
urbanoid Posted January 16 Posted January 16 Just now, Sinistar said: as nato members they have a vote if you say that does not matter than that a symptom of the fragmented nature of nato it is not a unified front which is the point all along and so it should be repeated again these problems were not necessarily unexpected as they were pointed out 30 years ago, including the ethnic distribution and makeup of eastern europe and how that would figure into it differently- ukraine for example is not a culturally or ethnically pure state consisting of ukrainians; the fact of a significant russian speaking or ethnic russian population (also poles, romanians etc) is basically suppressed or glossed over, never mind the dirty little ethnic civil war which occurred there the discourse about this fiasco is almost entirely ignored- you will not hear jens stoltenberg mention any of it, nor macron nor joe biden nor anyone from berlin to london since that is too complicated a movie to put on their public- it is simply 'ukrainians against russians' and that is all there is to it or it is either maga fake news or the ruzzians running interference again like they did in the 2016 election that is exactly the quality of public discussion going on in the united states no thanks we voted that out and so i no real value in this organization from the standpoint the defense of the united states or broadly the advancement of american goals- quite the opposite. it is all wretch and no vomit. it never gets there and we can take care of ourselves without that i would argue europe should also seriously reconsider how much each state should want to trade their own self interests for a few policy wonks in their respective capitols and play these games but as we can see many of them see incapable of doing otherwise Theoretically, in practice the vote of some countries means as much as Portugal's or Greece's stance on defending the Fulda Gap 50 years ago, which is... not very much. As you can see, it has always been like that. The US wants to remain a world hegemon and considers it its vital interest, doesn't particularly matter whether it's Ds or Rs, including Trump. Where Trump wants adjustments is in how those alliances work, not whether they exist in the first place. And they have good reasons to be bipartisan in principle, otherwise say goodbye to the dollar as world's primary reserve currency, among other things.
Sinistar Posted January 16 Posted January 16 43 minutes ago, urbanoid said: Theoretically, in practice the vote of some countries means as much as Portugal's or Greece's stance on defending the Fulda Gap 50 years ago, which is... not very much. As you can see, it has always been like that. The US wants to remain a world hegemon and considers it its vital interest, doesn't particularly matter whether it's Ds or Rs, including Trump. Where Trump wants adjustments is in how those alliances work, not whether they exist in the first place. And they have good reasons to be bipartisan in principle, otherwise say goodbye to the dollar as world's primary reserve currency, among other things. george soros views hegemony a bit differently- his version of the open borders and using nato and or a strategic framework which involves the western capitals is not the maga version of it at all but you are right to a degree- the establishment of both parties have shown very few differences with regards to foreign policy goals then trump came along and upended it, surviving attempts by both parties to keep him out of office until even the never trump elements of the republican party now are forced to lick his shoes in practice trump is probably going to dump zelensky- whether the rest of nato likes that or not is all academic because that is where it is going to go he may just tell zelensky to lower the draft age, which would probably be a very unpopular decision or failing that, he is on his own and maybe he should seek asylum because there is not much nato or ukraine is going to do to stop russia from capturing odessa and / or kharkiv within the next year or so if russia decides on that course and if that were to happen zelensky could be marked for a coup of his own at the risk of sounding jingoist, unless nato satisfies american needs, then i see no point to it from the perspective of the united states, because that is certainly what anyone else would do given the same position at the same time it is bewildering to me why any of the nato members continue to prostrate themselves in this way on the whims of the power brokers in washington d.c., unless they think somehow they can influence or control it or steer it in some direction- which they most certainly might have attempted in the last several election cycles for the next four years at least it is not going to look the same as it did previously
seahawk Posted January 16 Posted January 16 8 hours ago, Murph said: It should be a hard 5%. + a further 5% to pay the US back for all the years of spending nothing. I think each NATO nation should pay the US 5% of their GDP for the US being part in NATO.
Stuart Galbraith Posted January 16 Posted January 16 14 hours ago, RETAC21 said: No, way more permissive, and Palomares is an illustration, as far as the government knew (or declared), the B-52s were going to the NATO airfield at Gibraltar, meaning they had no knowledge of Chrome Dome flights whose tracks overflew N. Spain (including a refueling track around Saragossa) going in and S. Spain (with refuelers from Moron) going out. Storing nuclear weapons without telling the locals goes without saying. Oh I see! I should love to have seen a B52 land at Gibraltar. Even now that we extended the runway, that would probably be marginal.
rmgill Posted January 16 Posted January 16 (edited) Yeah. 5,827feet ain't going to cut it with any sort of load. Edited January 16 by rmgill
Murph Posted January 16 Posted January 16 8 hours ago, Stuart Galbraith said: Oh I see! I should love to have seen a B52 land at Gibraltar. Even now that we extended the runway, that would probably be marginal. Yeah, not either a good idea, or a feasible one.
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now