The end of NATO - good for Europe?

[seahawk]

56 minutes ago, Mr King said:

The countries in Central and South America and the Caribbean are not even real countries anyway.

 

 

As is the Ukraine.

[Stuart Galbraith]

Or the United States. Clearly as a nation its a figment of everyones deranged imagination.

[futon]

There is very clearly a strong Ukrainian identity, a Ukrainian nation. 

The length of time that a nation has had their own sovereign land varies greatly from nation to nation.

The Jews went a very long time without its own soverign state.

The Kurds haven't really had one, the closest to getting it is as an autonomous region with Iraq and/or Syria.

The Polish had a period of no soverign territory from late 1700s until end of WW1. 

Having one's on soverign territory is a precious thing that has continuously been sought for. The point that matters more is not length of soverign history thus far but degree of identity and how it relates with competing nations over the land.

 

[Stuart Galbraith]

3 minutes ago, futon said:

There is very clearly a strong Ukrainian identity, a Ukrainian nation. 

The length of time that a nation has had their own sovereign land varies greatly from nation to nation.

The Jews went a very long time without its own soverign state.

The Kurds haven't really had one, the closest to getting it is as an autonomous region with Iraq and/or Syria.

The Polish had a period of no soverign territory from late 1700s until end of WW1. 

Having one's on soverign territory is a precious thing that has continuously been sought for. The point that matters more is not length of soverign history thus far but degree of identity and how it relates with competing nations over the land.

 

Thats right. Thats exactly right. 

Its why the Empires fragmented, partly due to the cost of maintaining them, but it was indefensible to pretend sovereignty when the people in them begged to differ.

Hell, you would have thought Americans would figure that out if nobody else would.

[futon]

6 minutes ago, Stuart Galbraith said:

Thats right. Thats exactly right. 

Its why the Empires fragmented, partly due to the cost of maintaining them, but it was indefensible to pretend sovereignty when the people in them begged to differ.

Hell, you would have thought Americans would figure that out if nobody else would.

It's part of the reason why Taiwan has regarded Japan much more favorable than South (and North) Korea. Formosa was weaker identity and had weak connection with Qing China. Korea was a much deeper and matured identity.

[urbanoid]

1 minute ago, Stuart Galbraith said:

Thats right. Thats exactly right. 

Its why the Empires fragmented, partly due to the cost of maintaining them, but it was indefensible to pretend sovereignty when the people in them begged to differ.

Hell, you would have thought Americans would figure that out if nobody else would.

Um, ackchyually Canadians are Americans because they speak American, they were brainwashed by the British (who dwell in the ex-American islamist breakaway province) and the French (obligatory 'thank you' for not speaking German) into thinking they're actually Canadians. What was the goal? Obviously they wanted independent maple syrup supply. The 'Canadians' can only become great again when reunited with the Rodi... eee... Land of the Free.

[Murph]

Stuart, We WANTED Europe to step up and defend itself.  Read Leebaert's book on the Cold War.  We begged Europe to step up.  What did we get, lectures on how if Europe defended itself and cut social programs, it would be easier for the Soviets to take over, so so sorry, we cannot pony up any more money.  And by the way, we need to trade with the Soviets.  I see very very clearly.  Europe needs to put on its big girl panties and stand up without Uncle Sugar footing the bill.

[Murph]

10 minutes ago, urbanoid said:

Um, ackchyually Canadians are Americans because they speak American, they were brainwashed by the British (who dwell in the ex-American islamist breakaway province) and the French (obligatory 'thank you' for not speaking German) into thinking they're actually Canadians. What was the goal? Obviously they wanted independent maple syrup supply. The 'Canadians' can only become great again when reunited with the Rodi... eee... Land of the Free.

Actually Canada can be great again just by kicking the liberals to the curb, and becoming Canada again, instead of whatever it is now.  I have no desire to see Canada as part of the US, I like things just the way they are.  

[Stuart Galbraith]

Just now, Murph said:

Stuart, We WANTED Europe to step up and defend itself.  Read Leebaert's book on the Cold War.  We begged Europe to step up.  What did we get, lectures on how if Europe defended itself and cut social programs, it would be easier for the Soviets to take over, so so sorry, we cannot pony up any more money.  And by the way, we need to trade with the Soviets.  I see very very clearly.  Europe needs to put on its big girl panties and stand up without Uncle Sugar footing the bill.

No Murph, you didnt. You competed with European defence industries, mocked their efforts, and undercut them every chance you got. Heck you even used GCHQ against us, just so you could compete with orders to Saudi Arabia. Why? Because lobbyists trumped all other considerations, like building a Europe that could defend itself. I cant think of anything your defense industry found more terrifying.

You knew at every point what Britain had reduced its armed forces to, which was little more than light infantry at the ultimate development. Point to a single occasion when a US politician stood up and said to the British 'You shouldnt reduce your armed forces to light infantry. We want you to put a Division in central Europe.' 

And you didnt, because until 2022, your only concern was making damn sure you had a lot of warm bods to fight in the sandbox. We kept asking you guys, all the way back to 1982, 'what do you want us to do?' We never asked Europe. We asked America every damn time. So this narrative that you didnt notice this self mutilation to comply with your crackpot demands simply wont do. Its what you asked for. You got what the customer wanted, and we were too goddamned stupid to ask whether it was a good idea or not. Hell, we even continued turning the army into light militia to fight the war on terror, even after Afghanistan fell. Why? Because somewhere there was a belief in MOD its what you called for.

 

8 minutes ago, Murph said:

Actually Canada can be great again just by kicking the liberals to the curb, and becoming Canada again, instead of whatever it is now.  I have no desire to see Canada as part of the US, I like things just the way they are.  

Then maybe you should write to your senator and point that out, because clearly your President has other plans.

[Stargrunt6]

34 minutes ago, Murph said:

Stuart, We WANTED Europe to step up and defend itself.  Read Leebaert's book on the Cold War.  We begged Europe to step up.  What did we get, lectures on how if Europe defended itself and cut social programs, it would be easier for the Soviets to take over, so so sorry, we cannot pony up any more money.  And by the way, we need to trade with the Soviets.  I see very very clearly.  Europe needs to put on its big girl panties and stand up without Uncle Sugar footing the bill.

 

20 minutes ago, Stuart Galbraith said:

No Murph, you didnt. You competed with European defence industries, mocked their efforts, and undercut them every chance you got. Heck you even used GCHQ against us, just so you could compete with orders to Saudi Arabia. Why? Because lobbyists trumped all other considerations, like building a Europe that could defend itself. I cant think of anything your defense industry found more terrifying.

You knew at every point what Britain had reduced its armed forces to, which was little more than light infantry at the ultimate development. Point to a single occasion when a US politician stood up and said to the British 'You shouldnt reduce your armed forces to light infantry. We want you to put a Division in central Europe.' 

And you didnt, because until 2022, your only concern was making damn sure you had a lot of warm bods to fight in the sandbox. We kept asking you guys, all the way back to 1982, 'what do you want us to do?' We never asked Europe. We asked America every damn time. So this narrative that you didnt notice this self mutilation to comply with your crackpot demands simply wont do. Its what you asked for. You got what the customer wanted, and we were too goddamned stupid to ask whether it was a good idea or not. Hell, we even continued turning the army into light militia to fight the war on terror, even after Afghanistan fell. Why? Because somewhere there was a belief in MOD its what you called for.

 

Then maybe you should write to your senator and point that out, because clearly your President has other plans.

In this battle we have:

British dude who never served but reads a lot

VS

An actual US tanker who was in Germany in the 80s

 

 

[EchoFiveMike]

Everyone needs to understand that the wants of the actual American people are not aligned with the wants of the mostly foreign and certainly non-Americans who have been lording over the American people since at least the 1960's.  "American" policy has been oriented to the benefit of the tyrant overlords, much to the downfall of Actual Americans since then.  This can easily be seen by the actual observable results, ignoring all the smoke and bullshit gaslighting about the reasons why.  Intention doesn't matter, results matter.  

Actual America wants Europe to do well, on their own, independently.  S/F.....Ken M

[Stuart Galbraith]

31 minutes ago, Stargrunt6 said:

 

In this battle we have:

British dude who never served but reads a lot

VS

An actual US tanker who was in Germany in the 80s

 

 

With respect to him, what does his service in a sector far removed from the British sector of West Germany, give him the right to comment on facts which Ive read about all my life? I dont mock his service. I do however deeply question the crap he has been reading of late. In fact, the crap most of you have been reading of late.

Here is an example of how Britain made procurement decisions in the past, and still do. In 1980, with the new Tory Government in power, we decided we wanted to spend more money on the Army. But we had a huge navy. So John Nott went and talked with Weinburger and the US Navy, because they were the ones we were worried about. Do you really need us he asked? No he was told, in WW3 there wont be a need for a large Royal Navy. There will be no convoys because we expect it to go nuclear quickly. Besides, the Soviet Navy is not going to come out the barn. There will be no repeat of WW2, no convoy battles.

So armed with this knowledge he announced a cut to the navy, and proposed to put the money into the Army. And what do you know happened? Yes, just as the cuts were announced, the Argentinians invaded the falklands. And the huge navy (mostly mothballed but was still there) went south and retook the falklands. Completely contrary I might add to Al Haigs and the State department whom was trying to hand them over to Argentina. Feel free to doubt all this by the way. You can read it in Notts memoirs, here to day and gone tomorrow if you doubt my veracity.

I look back, I ask myself so often why we have bust a gut trying to give you what you want? Because very clearly, much of the time, you have no idea yourself what you want from us. But time and time again, if we dont have x capacity on hand some smartarse politician across the atlantic will comment 'well you shouldnt have got rid of it!' And most often, its because you told us to concentrate on anything else. For example, the obsession with SF at the expense of mechanised infantry. Who do you think was encouraging us to do that?

These are facts. Look them up, or continue to dwell in the self created bubble you all pass for reality these days.

 

Edited March 18 by Stuart Galbraith

[futon]

59 minutes ago, Murph said:

Actually Canada can be great again just by kicking the liberals to the curb, and becoming Canada again, instead of whatever it is now.  I have no desire to see Canada as part of the US, I like things just the way they are.  

I think most people that voted for Trump would agree. 

[Murph]

57 minutes ago, EchoFiveMike said:

Everyone needs to understand that the wants of the actual American people are not aligned with the wants of the mostly foreign and certainly non-Americans who have been lording over the American people since at least the 1960's.  "American" policy has been oriented to the benefit of the tyrant overlords, much to the downfall of Actual Americans since then.  This can easily be seen by the actual observable results, ignoring all the smoke and bullshit gaslighting about the reasons why.  Intention doesn't matter, results matter.  

Actual America wants Europe to do well, on their own, independently.  S/F.....Ken M

Yes.  I wish Europe well, and hope they do well on their own, without US money, or troops.  

[seahawk]

And they can keep their socialism...

[Stargrunt6]

1 hour ago, Stuart Galbraith said:

With respect to him, what does his service in a sector far removed from the British sector of West Germany, give him the right to comment on facts which Ive read about all my life? I dont mock his service. I do however deeply question the crap he has been reading of late. In fact, the crap most of you have been reading of late.

Here is an example of how Britain made procurement decisions in the past, and still do. In 1980, with the new Tory Government in power, we decided we wanted to spend more money on the Army. But we had a huge navy. So John Nott went and talked with Weinburger and the US Navy, because they were the ones we were worried about. Do you really need us he asked? No he was told, in WW3 there wont be a need for a large Royal Navy. There will be no convoys because we expect it to go nuclear quickly. Besides, the Soviet Navy is not going to come out the barn. There will be no repeat of WW2, no convoy battles.

So armed with this knowledge he announced a cut to the navy, and proposed to put the money into the Army. And what do you know happened? Yes, just as the cuts were announced, the Argentinians invaded the falklands. And the huge navy (mostly mothballed but was still there) went south and retook the falklands. Completely contrary I might add to Al Haigs and the State department whom was trying to hand them over to Argentina. Feel free to doubt all this by the way. You can read it in Notts memoirs, here to day and gone tomorrow if you doubt my veracity.

I look back, I ask myself so often why we have bust a gut trying to give you what you want? Because very clearly, much of the time, you have no idea yourself what you want from us. But time and time again, if we dont have x capacity on hand some smartarse politician across the atlantic will comment 'well you shouldnt have got rid of it!' And most often, its because you told us to concentrate on anything else. For example, the obsession with SF at the expense of mechanised infantry. Who do you think was encouraging us to do that?

These are facts. Look them up, or continue to dwell in the self created bubble you all pass for reality these days.

 

Cool, man

[RETAC21]

1 hour ago, Stargrunt6 said:

Cool, man

So, just to get this straight, if Stuart counters Murph non-sense with arguments based on actual, real history, Murph wins because it's too hard to read a long text?

[RETAC21]

2 hours ago, EchoFiveMike said:

Everyone needs to understand that the wants of the actual American people are not aligned with the wants of the mostly foreign and certainly non-Americans who have been lording over the American people since at least the 1960's.  "American" policy has been oriented to the benefit of the tyrant overlords, much to the downfall of Actual Americans since then.  This can easily be seen by the actual observable results, ignoring all the smoke and bullshit gaslighting about the reasons why.  Intention doesn't matter, results matter.  

Actual America wants Europe to do well, on their own, independently.  S/F.....Ken M

Who, exactly, are these foreigners that lorded over the US? some names you care to quote?

[Stargrunt6]

18 minutes ago, RETAC21 said:

So, just to get this straight, if Stuart counters Murph non-sense with arguments based on actual, real history, Murph wins because it's too hard to read a long text?

Sorry, I didn't realize word spam trumps someone who actually spent time as a WP target. Mah bad brah.

 

[RETAC21]

2 minutes ago, Stargrunt6 said:

Sorry, I didn't realize word spam trumps someone who actually spent time as a WP target. Mah bad brah.

 

And just what insight does doing maintenance on a tank, watching a border with binoculars and standing guard provides? because there are a number of posters that also have done those things but apparently their opinions don't count because...? and conversely, there are posters that haven't served beyond their couches that also have strong opinions? do those get discounted, deleted?

Just to clarify, you know.

[Stargrunt6]

4 minutes ago, RETAC21 said:

And just what insight does doing maintenance on a tank, watching a border with binoculars and standing guard provides? because there are a number of posters that also have done those things but apparently their opinions don't count because...? and conversely, there are posters that haven't served beyond their couches that also have strong opinions? do those get discounted, deleted?

Just to clarify, you know.

Thanks for making my point for me.

[RETAC21]

7 minutes ago, Stargrunt6 said:

Thanks for making my point for me.

Oh, and did you serve? or we dump your posts with Stuart's?

I would have expected from you not to try such an absurd appeal to authority fallacy. 

[rmgill]

14 minutes ago, RETAC21 said:

And just what insight does doing maintenance on a tank, watching a border with binoculars and standing guard provides? because there are a number of posters that also have done those things but apparently their opinions don't count because...? and conversely, there are posters that haven't served beyond their couches that also have strong opinions? do those get discounted, deleted?

Just to clarify, you know.

Didn’t you try to wrap yourself in your military service in the same way some months ago as some sort of rebuttal to me? 
 

From the standpoint of the ‘Russia is a major threat’ argument, perhaps the Cold War tanker would have a better idea than the snot nosed civilian? 

[RETAC21]

9 minutes ago, rmgill said:

Didn’t you try to wrap yourself in your military service in the same way some months ago as some sort of rebuttal to me? 

From the standpoint of the ‘Russia is a major threat’ argument, perhaps the Cold War tanker would have a better idea than the snot nosed civilian? 

No, I asked about your (non-existent) service which you "countered" by showing off your gung ho nature by carrying a fire extinguisher in the car... 🙄

I have never quoted my service as a magic source of knowledge on military history, history or anything else, in fact.

From the point of the "Russia is a major threat" probably the ex-tanker that has already proven wrong several times on the points he keeps bringing up time and again with actual facts is clueless and his service back in the 80s has no relevance, since he hasn't kept himself current on anything.

Edited to add: if we apply Stargrunt6's standard, your postings are as worthless as Stuart's, so, which rules you prefer?

Edited March 18 by RETAC21

[Stargrunt6]

8 minutes ago, rmgill said:

Didn’t you try to wrap yourself in your military service in the same way some months ago as some sort of rebuttal to me? 
 

From the standpoint of the ‘Russia is a major threat’ argument, perhaps the Cold War tanker would have a better idea than the snot nosed civilian? 

Bro is just straight up discussing in bad faith.