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
#29
John,

Immediate threat is what I mean and I would agree that could mean before troops land here, but, I'd be very slow to make that call. Israel in 1967 made the proper call because there was 0 doubt they were about to be invaded for example. No sense waiting to be a martyr, that's extremely rare though where you know war is imminent and it's literally on your borders, we don't face that scenario.

Certainly wouldn't continue with entities like NATO. It makes 0 moral logic to me that we would be willing to enter war if we are not threatened. Plus, I just can't agree that it is acceptable to use economic coercion and violence so we can have a bigger say in affairs, that's most of what we're about, not providing freedom here.

Our freedom is way more in danger from our state than others. That's who you need to fear, not foreigners 5000 miles away.

Besides, who are you going to kill, Spaniards or Brits if they come to blows and why? Or Greeks or Turks and why?
https://www.yahoo.com/news/britain-defen...40453.html
Reply
#30
(04-02-2017, 03:39 PM)Palladin Wrote: John,

Immediate threat is what I mean and I would agree that could mean before troops land here, but, I'd be very slow to make that call. Israel in 1967 made the proper call because there was 0 doubt they were about to be invaded for example. No sense waiting to be a martyr, that's extremely rare though where you know war is imminent and it's literally on your borders, we don't face that scenario.

Certainly wouldn't continue with entities like NATO.   It makes 0 moral logic to me that we would be willing to enter war if we are not threatened.   Plus, I just can't agree that it is acceptable to use economic coercion and violence so we can have a bigger say in affairs, that's most of what we're about, not providing freedom here.

Again, one more thing I stress all over the place, which you may have skipped over. My point's about how it is better to think strategically, than to think tactically.  What you are telling me is that you are a tactician at heart.  That's what some would call not being able to look "Beyond your Johnson".  I prefer thinking strategically.  You DO change your oil filter regularly, don't you?

(04-02-2017, 03:39 PM)Palladin Wrote: Our freedom is way more in danger from our state than others. That's who you need to fear, not foreigners 5000 miles away.

Again, tactically or strategically?

(04-02-2017, 03:39 PM)Palladin Wrote: Besides, who are you going to kill, Spaniards or Brits if they come to blows and why? Or Greeks or Turks and why?  
https://www.yahoo.com/news/britain-defen...40453.html

I feel quite certain that England can take care of its own problems in the example you have put forth Patrick.

Do you remember this Fram Oil Filter commercial.  I've used it several time here before.  Its one of the best All-Time commercials out there.

Pay me Now or Pay me Later; Pay Me you will!


___________________________________________________________________________________________________
"INSIDE EVERY PROGRESSIVE IS A TOTALITARIAN SCREAMING TO GET OUT" - David Horowitz

Reply
#31
Strategically, tactically, your assets and your freedom are in more danger from the US state than any foreigner. It has always been that way since at least post war of 1812.

There is literally 0 chance someone will or could invade this country. The very thought is ludicrous. We have 10 carrier battle groups, next competitor has 1, want to explain how the hell they are going to even step foot on our shores for starters? You have to be mentally unstable to buy the USA pr campaign, IMO.

I can explain how your 401K can vanish by a quick vote and signature.

We're safer than any people group in earth's history ever has been from foreign invasion right now, but, not from Uncle Sam. That's where your focus should be.

BTW, it's Uncle Sam who passed the immigration act of 1965 that has exploded the % of Muslims in our nation, not Saddam Hussein, Assad or Bin laden.
Reply
#32
(04-02-2017, 07:10 PM)Palladin Wrote: Strategically, tactically, your assets and your freedom are in more danger from the US state than any foreigner. It has always been that way since at least post war of 1812.

There is literally 0 chance someone will or could invade this country. The very thought is ludicrous. We have 10 carrier battle groups, next competitor has 1, want to explain how the hell they are going to even step foot on our shores for starters? You have to be mentally unstable to buy the USA pr campaign, IMO.

I can explain how your 401K can vanish by a quick vote and signature.

 We're safer than any people group in earth's history ever has been from foreign invasion right now, but, not from Uncle Sam. That's where your focus should be.

Perhaps at the moment. Remember, carrier groups become obsolete with use, and they can be sunk too.

So, what about the several countries, which have nuclear weapons, and missile technology to place them over major cities. There's Russia, PRC, soon the North Koreans, and Iranians. Don't you have the least bit of worry about this? Just sayin'.

(04-02-2017, 07:10 PM)Palladin Wrote: BTW, it's Uncle Sam who passed the immigration act of 1965 that has exploded the % of Muslims in our nation, not Saddam Hussein, Assad or Bin laden.

Somehow I thought it was our good friend, MacDaddy, along with Junior, who actually let more of them in than any other time before them. Am I wrong here?
___________________________________________________________________________________________________
"INSIDE EVERY PROGRESSIVE IS A TOTALITARIAN SCREAMING TO GET OUT" - David Horowitz

Reply
#33
"So, what about the several countries, which have nuclear weapons, and missile technology to place them over major cities. There's Russia, PRC, soon the North Koreans, and Iranians. Don't you have the least bit of worry about this? Just sayin'."

Sure I do, John. Right now, especially NK because they have nukes and little else.

Those states you mentioned, do you think Argentinians or people in Rwanda fear them? They don't. Because they have not stepped into the "Roman Empire" arena.

Iranians, North Koreans, Russians nor Chinese would have hostility towards the US if we didn't have the post WWII Roman Empire paradigm. Why would they?

You think those states want to make war with Ecuador? Think they plan against Peru or Paraguay?

You think Brazilians fear for any of these bogeymen? Honestly?

Why do you think Japan bombed Pearl Harbor and not Chile or Costa Rica? Because we were competing for Asian hegemony and they weren't? That's what I think.

Why did Napoleon NOT invade the USA and did invade his neighbors? Because they were competitors for regional hegemony and the USA was not back then? That's what I think.

Mind your business and you have tons less people who want you dead. The more we act internationally, the more we're hated and the less safe we are, Paraguay isn't in danger from any of these bogeymen.

How many dead British soldiers were there from the Crimean war? I don't know. I do know not one mother, not one wife or child deserved to have a stupid flag draped over their loved one's coffin as opposed to their loved one, that war had dick to do with the way of life of the people of Britain and it's no different with we Americans. We're sick with this Roman Empire paradigm, John.

I hate it with a strong passion. It's like we're on a mind altering drug.

We need to mind our concerns which are here in north America. if someone does end up posing a serious future strategic threat to our way of life, people like myself and Rand Paul aren't idiots, we'll recognize it and agree to resist it. Right now, the threat to the USA is resistance to our global role, not danger here.
Reply
#34
I agree with Palladin.
Anti-US nations arte anti-US because they fear the US strategic power. They fear the 10 carrier groups and trans-continental bombers.

But the same is true one scale down: Smaller nations fear Russia or China.
http://www.reuters.com/article/us-lithua...SKBN1750Z0
Reply
#35
(04-02-2017, 08:23 PM)Palladin Wrote: ...Iranians, North Koreans, Russians nor Chinese would[n't] have hostility towards the US if we didn't have the post WWII Roman Empire paradigm. Why would they?
...Let's see... the Barbary Pirates attacked our merchant ships peacefully trading, and took the seamen as slaves. We're talking about hundreds of thousands of people captured. The only reason they targeted us was because we were there.

North Korea has no national resources to speak of, and must take what it wants to survive. Iran, which was once run under a benevolent secular dictator is now the leading sponsor of terrorism throughout the world. Russia once held half the world in thrall, lost it, and wants it all back. The Chinese don't care about the rest of the world, so they don't fit your mold.

In other words, these places don't need a reason to want what they don't have, and will always go after the biggest pile of lucre to fill their strong boxes. The only reason they may avoid certain targets is if those targets are hardened against their efforts. Then they go after the next wealthiest targets who are easier to exploit.

Stop pretending it is the targets' fault for being successful. There is no "post WWII Roman Empire paradigm" that causes this - just envy and opportunity.
Reply
#36
Fred,

It is true that large states anywhere pose dangers to their neighbors. That's factual. That's also true of our neighbors, we've Fd with lots of them in our days.

William,

The Barbary pirates stole from all, they were not prejudiced.

Iran nor China nor Russia are a natural enemy of the USA, they are because people like you think it's your business to govern their areas.

It isn't. Right here is your business and mine.

It looks like we're preparing to assist the Sunni jihadis in Syria again under your hero the Donald.

I'm praying we stay out of Syria's civil war but, I am not betting we do, Americans aren't into that mind your own business thing.

http://hotair.com/archives/2017/04/06/cn...nst-syria/

If we do, it is warring on a nation and we would need a war declared, IMO. The thing is we're done with congress even having a say, we're on auto pilot war.
Reply
#37
It just so happens that there is a good record of Trump's original attitude about going into Syria.  Perhaps we should all remind him of what he tweeted back then.

On The Record: President Trump Vs. Private Citizen Trump On Syria

Click to Enlarge
   

If he's smart, he will follow his original thinking.

The point is that there are chemical weapons ALL over Syria, thanks to the Soviet Union. AND, right before our invasion of Iraq, a substantial contingent of Soviet CBR personnel flew into Iraq, and married up to waiting vehicles with concealed covering. They dispersed, and loaded up tons of Saddam's chemical weapons, and conveniently made up a Huge convoy that took them into Syria, and out of our reach. Fortunately, they couldn't eliminate all the tell-tale signs, but that didn't stop the Jackasses from making hay over the weapons not being there.

I will bet my left testicle that a good percentage of these 'so called' WMDs were collected by ISIS and other rebel groups. This latest tragedy could be something other than what is reported, because Assad has enough sense to know better than do such a stupid thing.

Stay the Hell out of that place, for heaven's sake. We have no business playing Brer Rabbit and the Tar Baby.

[Image: tarrabbit.jpg]
___________________________________________________________________________________________________
"INSIDE EVERY PROGRESSIVE IS A TOTALITARIAN SCREAMING TO GET OUT" - David Horowitz

Reply
#38
Jihadis have used them as well in Iraq and Syria. There are no good players in Syria AND there is likely 0 evidence for who did this. It strikes me with all the media jumping on it that Trump has signaled them he is going to retaliate so they ramp up their "news reporting" about Assad. Perfect example of how subservient the US media is to the US state.

Again, if we do this, it is inappropriate for a pilot or solider to accept orders to do it w/o congress declaring war, this cannot reasonably be seen as the GWOT.

So, I hope any soldier, airman or Marine accepting orders to attack the Syrian Army or government is captured and charged with a war crime. They will be guilty.

It's past time US service people remember their oaths. It is to protect the US constitution from all enemies, foreign AND domestic. If Trump orders an attack on Syria, he needs to be arrested by them instead of them murdering for his whims.

Everyone right now should look at all major websites, they may as well be US state owned like Pravda in the USSR was. Just doing pr for the big bad "exceptional" American government which can kiss my ass.

This is a really good article on Syria. We are about to assist Al Qaeda( anyone remember them?) under the authorization to make war on Al Qaeda.

I hope Trump gets arrested and deported to Damascus if he follows through on this:

http://theweek.com/articles/690372/ameri...ouldnt-try

EDIT: The murderous ass did it. Al Qaeda's Navy flew into action tonight. Obama resisted this, he deserves at least that credit compared to the heartless, morally vapid ass in office now.

Hoping this at least catalyzes the democrats to kind of consider maybe the congress has a role to play in war again.
Reply
#39
Well, so much for saying one thing, and then doing another.   Shock

U.S. Launches Missiles at Syrian Base After Chemical Weapons Attack

If the Syrians Did do this, I can't think of any way Assad would ok this.  This is Stupidity 101, and he's not stupid.  I don't care is this is political expediency personified, we still have no business getting into the middle of it all.  Sorry Bill, but this is just plain dumb.
___________________________________________________________________________________________________
"INSIDE EVERY PROGRESSIVE IS A TOTALITARIAN SCREAMING TO GET OUT" - David Horowitz

Reply
#40
This was an unlawful military action. There is no authorization for it, there was no emergency that can be used to excuse it. The sailors that followed these orders should be arrested, Mattis should be arrested.

This is our opportunity to remove this jackass from office. All democrats will vote for conviction and the Rand Paul GOP types will and that's a majority.

ISIS almost had to have known of this ahead of time, the ISIS Navy is impressive:

http://www.dailystar.co.uk/news/latest-n...ump-action
Reply


Forum Jump:


Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)