Thread Rating:
  • 0 Vote(s) - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
Who Supports NATO?
#21
NATO is as much symbol as guardian. During the Cold War it signified one side of a global competition. Now it is less about being allies as it is being national contracts.
Reply
#22
WmL Wrote:Obama cut money to the military and raised the Debt hugely. Reagan increased spending for the military and improved the economy.
That's too different things.

If you spent less for the military and more for other things, of course you increase spendings.
But what if, by a strike of genius, you reduce spendings BOTH in the military and the other things?

...and Obama didn't realy reduce defense budget by that much. Just wasted less on Iraq... by the natural evolution of events.

Ron Wrote:NATO is a left-over from the Cold War. Unless Trump can rein-in the Russians, it could be starting up again.
Putin didn't wait to restart it up.
I wonder how longer Trump and Putin will admire each other... Both are doing the opposite of what they are saying. Trump because he is done campaining, Putin because he is a russian politician.
Reply
#23
Concerning the comment by William that Obama cut defense spending, flatly wrong.

Presidents in the USA don't get to do that, legislatures do that and the GOP legislature, in place 6 of 8 Obama years sequestered the entire federal budget, including DoD spending. Not to mention Obama drew down US Army troops in Iraq and Afghanistan relative to Bush rates so of course the spending went down from that as well.

The USA spends more than the next 100 nations on war, we're not starved for war making potential. All we've done since 1990 is make war and the results have come back to haunt us in instability in Asia minor and enhanced levels of trillions of dollars of new debt.

As far as a new cold war with Russia, it won't be because of Trump. For now anyway, he doesn't agree with all the constant warrior mentality.

Anyway, if I were a European, I would read into this little act a whole lot. NATO isn't dead, but, if there really were an invasion of the continent, I doubt we'd be willing to send tons of American boys to die. Those days are over with, as hard as the press and state here are trying, most of us no longer see Russians as Martians like we used to.


https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/nat...7d285aa737
Reply
#24
Obama did much to make military personnel resign early and leave the service in droves. First, even with the drastically reduced numbers in the armed forces, (unable to actually sustain multiple-sided fronts) the money that did get through to active duty soldiers and their families did not even keep up with cost-of-living pressures which made their buying power shrink considerably. On top of salaries, the material necessary for carrying out their duties has brought down the army, navy, and other forces to the lowest numbers since we had 186 million population. He ruined the spirit by disarming his Marine guards, and creating Rules of Engagement designed to neuter his soldiers. Congress has the purse strings, but Reagan and Bush 43 were able to better fund the military. Trump will also.
Reply
#25
Yea, we're so weak Grenada might invade us. Or Switzerland.
Reply
#26
(03-21-2017, 06:57 PM)Palladin Wrote: Yea, we're so weak Grenada might invade us. Or Switzerland.

Patrick, have you ever read any of Edward Gibbon's "Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire"? I'm referring to the introduction, because the main part is a bit tedious and only a history scholar would wade through it. Let me go and look at it for what I want you to read.

His most famous quote is where he explains why Rome generally experienced several hundred years of peace and prosperity. What he stated was that Rome maintained its peace, prosperity, and greatness "By being in a constant state of preparedness for war". In other words "Peace through strength".

The "Pax Roma" and "Pax Britannia" were proven causes for advancement of Western ideals, and the US really had no choice but step in and continue this principle after the British lost their ability to continue it. The US is doing this in order to maintain world peace, by not allowing the Soviet Union, or present and future forces of conquest to disrupt the general peace and prosperity that has reigned since WWII.

Did we purposefully try to fill this void? No, but we were the only thing there to keep the Soviets from rolling over all of Europe and possibly the rest of the world. We were handed it by default.

Why do you think we led the way to get a UN established? And obviously it didn't work, because of the corruption and inability of the UN to lead via example. Now, would you rather have the PRC control things? Or perhaps Russia? Somebody always gets stuck in the leadership role, and things happen based on the leader's basic values.

Tell me Patrick, who would you rather see leading the way?
___________________________________________________________________________________________________
"INSIDE EVERY PROGRESSIVE IS A TOTALITARIAN SCREAMING TO GET OUT" - David Horowitz

Reply
#27
John,

I don't care. We're big, wealthy enough and powerful enough to prevent anyone screwing around with us under all conditions.

All the trouble we had occupying Iraq and that was caused only by the 20% of ethnic Arab Sunnis largely tells me it is unreasonable to believe anyone would try that on us. Even with no US Army, no Navy or Air Force and no atomic weapons, we could easily kill 100 soldiers daily with the civilian arms we have via sniper fire, etc.

As a Christian, I don't believe in killing people unless they are a threat to my family. The USA post WWII paradigm is about using violence and economic misery to harm folks who don't kiss our ass and I am done supporting that. It's your call to support it if you want to.

I could care less who "leads the way" as long as I don't pay for it or support it. If China wants to, fine, China can act like the Romans did and we can remove China from earth if they F with us. We have the power w/o all the Roman empire trash.
Reply
#28
(03-21-2017, 07:52 PM)Palladin Wrote: John,

I don't care. We're big, wealthy enough and powerful enough to prevent anyone screwing around with us under all conditions.

For how long Patrick?  Have you thought that through, or does it matter to you?

(03-21-2017, 07:52 PM)Palladin Wrote: All the trouble we had occupying Iraq and that was caused only by the 20% of ethnic Arab Sunnis largely tells me it is unreasonable to believe anyone would try that on us. Even with no US Army, no Navy or Air Force and no atomic weapons, we could easily kill 100 soldiers daily with the civilian arms we have via sniper fire, etc.

Yes, as I have stated numerous times, had you read my posts, we should have done as the animal trainer did.  Do you remember that joke from one of my posts?  Well here it is again.
-------
An elephant trainer is standing in front of a bunch of onlookers, while a huge bull elephant is standing behind him.  

He tells the onlookers, "This is how you train an elephant".

He walks behind the bull elephant, grabs his testicles and smashes them together.  Then he walks back around in front of the elephant.  

He looks at the elephant and says, "Did that hurt?" The elephant nods his head in the affirmative.

The trainer continues, "Do you want more of the same?"  The elephant shakes his head in the negative.

The trainer turns around and tells the onlookers, "That's how you train an elephant."

-------
My point was that you go in, kick ass and then ask the leaders if beating the shit out of them hurt.  When they nod their heads in the affirmative, you ask them if they want more of the same.  

Then you unass yourself, and leave them to solve their own problems, knowing that if they cause any more trouble to outsiders, they are going to get the shit kicked out of them again.   S22

(03-21-2017, 07:52 PM)Palladin Wrote: As a Christian, I don't believe in killing people unless they are a threat to my family. The USA post WWII paradigm is about using violence and economic misery to harm folks who don't kiss our ass and I am done supporting that. It's your call to support it if you want to.

See, again you are not being concise.  By "a threat to my family" are you referring to "immediate threat", or "long term threat"?  As I keep saying if you bothered reading my posts, "Think Strategy" first, and then fill in the gaps with sound tactics.  But always Think Strategy.  Do you remember me saying this?  If not, try reading some of my posts, and stop all the skimming.

(03-21-2017, 07:52 PM)Palladin Wrote: I could care less who "leads the way" as long as I don't pay for it or support it. If China wants to, fine, China can act like the Romans did and we can remove China from earth if they F with us. We have the power w/o all the Roman empire trash.

You had Damned well Better Care, if you have a functioning brain between your clavicles.  Again "THINK STRATEGY!"

Incidentally, are you preaching for closing the borders and trading only with ourselves?  Because if not, then who is going to keep world trade save for us?  Well Duuh!  Think about it.  Again, "THINK STRATEGY" for Heaven's Sake.   Gah
[/quote]
___________________________________________________________________________________________________
"INSIDE EVERY PROGRESSIVE IS A TOTALITARIAN SCREAMING TO GET OUT" - David Horowitz

Reply


Forum Jump:


Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)