NATO warned to start paying its bills
- Thread starter Locutus
- Start date
The EU are pretty useless, they can talk the talk but they never seem to be able to walk the talk.
Isn't the Sebian conflict an example of this?
If the US doesn't help protect the EU, the EU will once again get itself into trouble and the US will have to bail them out once again, at a much lager cost than if they had stayed involved from the beginning.
I disagree. For the exacte reasons i have posted above.
The EU needing North America to save their butts is what made America great in the first place.
Why save them from their own stupidity for free when we can capitalize on it when they are very desperate?
Have you seen EU right now? They are under cultural attack. Our opponents have shifted their tactics in order to by pass our military strength.
The EU needing North America to save their butts is what made America great in the first place.
Historic Correction:
Japan attacks the neutral United States on Dec 7th 1941. Japan declares war on the United States AFTER the attack. The United States declared war on Japan on Dec 8th (Canada declared war on Japan on Dec 7th).
The German Reich declared war on the United States on Dec 11th. The United States declared war on Germany after that but on the same day.
Before the declaration of war, the US was neutral and not a superpower by any means. The EU was formed under the mostly American occupation of Western Europe, with their hearty approval, after a war that the Americans did not want to be in but that they ended up in because of a Japanese surprise attack. "Saving Europe's butt" made the Americans rich, powerful and ultimately world dominant for a few decades.
When did the needling happen?
Historic Correction:
Japan attacks the neutral United States on Dec 7th 1941. Japan declares war on the United States AFTER the attack. The United States declared war on Japan on Dec 8th (Canada declared war on Japan on Dec 7th).
The German Reich declared war on the United States on Dec 11th. The United States declared war on Germany after that but on the same day.
Before the declaration of war, the US was neutral and not a superpower by any means. The EU was formed under the mostly American occupation of Western Europe, with their hearty approval, after a war that the Americans did not want to be in but that they ended up in because of a Japanese surprise attack. "Saving Europe's butt" made the Americans rich, powerful and ultimately world dominant for a few decades.
When did the needling happen?
Last edited:
They have to be saved from their own stupidity, because like in the past, ultimately it's is Americas best long term interest to have stability in Europe.
Who's going to save America from her stupidity when America rips itself in two?
The last time around, Britain and France contemplated intervening. The British aided the Confederacy, ironically at a time when the British electorate was firmly against slavery. Had the British and French sent troops, it could have had a different outcome.
(I'm glad that they didn't because Canada would have become a battleground, again.)
I hope that we come to Vermont's aid, this time.
I like Vermont
You are not very observant, Are you? They are well on their way.
There is the sane half and there is the half that thinks like you, do. There is no middle ground for them to meet on, anymore. There is no "fix" for a country that holds such extreme views.
According to an interview done yesterday, when asked about Canada paying its share, Trudeau said, (paraphrased) that Canada contributes in other ways.
I wonder if I can start paying my bills in other ways. You know, with mud pies or igneous rocks.
I wonder if I can start paying my bills in other ways. You know, with mud pies or igneous rocks.
Maybe the new generations need to learn a lesson. Or maybe they are spinless enough to prefer red to dead.
Do you suppose I could pay some of my taxes with horse poop? I could even deliver it to trudPOWE's doorstep.
Last edited:
When you consider today's biggest threat (other than old rivals bickering over whose side to take) is an enemy who can hide among non combatants, conventional force is pretty much useless
That's the rub that strategists discuss at length.Warfare has been going on for some time. After the fighting slows or stops, It takes longer and you require more resources to root out any remaining opposition. And frankly, you can never get it all. Regardless, how do you maintain peace and control?
The US is often faulted for fighting a bunch of wars and then hanging around. But the deal isn't done after you've taken out the last of the resistance. For peace to last, someone has to be there to monitor things and take action, should a new group rise up and attempt to cause trouble.
This is where the debates start and never seem to stop. The responses in parentheses are mine.
1. How long do you stay? (It depends. Each situation is different.)
2. How much power is given to forces that remain? (Ideally, locals form their own governments, police their own people. Remaining forces advise. Unfortunately, it doesn't always happen that way. Again, each situation is different.)
3. What gives the US - or any other country for that matter - the right to invade another country? (Many times, assistance from a country is requested. Other times, when there is a breakdown in local government and people are suffering, countries go in. Natural disasters happen. Occasionally, when the actions of a country threaten the well being of surrounding states. For all these things, the UN is supposed to act, but they have turned into a bloated, poorly functioning bureaucracy. )
There is an expression that started sometime in the 1970s. "Boots on the ground." After the fighting stops, some conventional ground forces remain to transition a country back to a peaceful existence. Sarcasm aside, once fighting slows markedly or completely stops, things have to return to a peaceful state. Help is always needed. Political advice. Medical. Food. Training locals to police the peace, etc.
If you like history, the study of what happened in Europe after WWII finished is compelling. Japan too. Modern examples include Afghanistan. When the US finished in country operations, why are some troops still there?
The US is often faulted for fighting a bunch of wars and then hanging around. But the deal isn't done after you've taken out the last of the resistance. For peace to last, someone has to be there to monitor things and take action, should a new group rise up and attempt to cause trouble.
This is where the debates start and never seem to stop. The responses in parentheses are mine.
1. How long do you stay? (It depends. Each situation is different.)
2. How much power is given to forces that remain? (Ideally, locals form their own governments, police their own people. Remaining forces advise. Unfortunately, it doesn't always happen that way. Again, each situation is different.)
3. What gives the US - or any other country for that matter - the right to invade another country? (Many times, assistance from a country is requested. Other times, when there is a breakdown in local government and people are suffering, countries go in. Natural disasters happen. Occasionally, when the actions of a country threaten the well being of surrounding states. For all these things, the UN is supposed to act, but they have turned into a bloated, poorly functioning bureaucracy. )
There is an expression that started sometime in the 1970s. "Boots on the ground." After the fighting stops, some conventional ground forces remain to transition a country back to a peaceful existence. Sarcasm aside, once fighting slows markedly or completely stops, things have to return to a peaceful state. Help is always needed. Political advice. Medical. Food. Training locals to police the peace, etc.
If you like history, the study of what happened in Europe after WWII finished is compelling. Japan too. Modern examples include Afghanistan. When the US finished in country operations, why are some troops still there?
Last edited:
Despite his vocal opposition of the status and importance of NATO (probably because the Russians want him to find a way to fragment and destroy the organization), Donald Trump accused a number of countries for not keeping up with the Americans when it came to military spending.
But wait a sec.
Maybe … just maybe … we should be pressuring the US to cut their military budget by 50%. What a novel idea, right?
In 2016, the US spent $600 billion on its military. This doesn’t include the hundreds of billions for other activities like the NSA, CIA, etc etc etc.
I'm thinking Trump is just being a salesman for the US Military suppliers..........
But wait a sec.
Maybe … just maybe … we should be pressuring the US to cut their military budget by 50%. What a novel idea, right?
In 2016, the US spent $600 billion on its military. This doesn’t include the hundreds of billions for other activities like the NSA, CIA, etc etc etc.
I'm thinking Trump is just being a salesman for the US Military suppliers..........
