Does it bother you that Trump has attacked USA's most important ally since WW2?

Results of the last election...A lot of pundits seem to think it was something of a referendum on the EU and the most pro EU guy lost. Le Pen's party has never been exactly EU friendly, and Brussel's desire to ship in more Muslim's doesn't sit well with a Party who's only real difference with Hollande's is immigration. In fact Muslim immigration after Brussels Paris and other assaults by Muslim extremists is beginning to make a lot of Europeans rather skeptical of Brussels.

Not to mention which socially conservative Islam and socially liberal Europe is a really dangerous mix anyway.

 

I was Pro EU between 2011-2015.

 

That 'election' in Italy was no election, it was a referendum about reforming the country's political system, modernizing its adminstration and bureaucracy and reforming the two chambers in the parliament, especially the Senate in Rome. It had nothing to do with pro-EU or con-EU and it wasn't an election.
The then prime minister Matteo Renzi was very pro-referendum/pro-modernizing, but majority of the voters didn't want to have those reforms, so he resigned. The new prime minister is the ex-foreign minister Paolo Gentiloni, same party as the old guy, same political standpoint.
You really have to misinterpret and drastically simplify that referendum to conclude that Italy will or wants to leave the EU soon or that this 'election' was about pro-EU/con-EU. Those pundits must have had bad sources.
Italy has traditionally one of the most pro-EU populace.

Regarding France, sure, M. Le Pen is very con-EU, but her or her father's party have been a part of France's political landscape for decades and have never really achieved anything.

 

There is sir a first time for everything regarding Le Pen. And Her party has never had this sort of "help" from Muslims before.

 

And America's ongoing quest for global hegemony won't produce a one-world government?

 

Yeah, destabilizing an entire region of the planet and causing death and misery for vast scores of Muslims that couldn't pay her off. Neocon foreign affairs at their finest!

 

It was meant to prevent wars between themselves, mainly between france and germany... you miss the point entirely..

Exactly, if the russians pull off a fait accompli that leaves the rest of NATO with the choice of wheter to just ignore it, or start a nuclear ww3. So.. to avoid the possibility of such a fait accompli, there must be british, french, and american troops already present in poland, so that if Russia invades, a nuclear ww3 is unavoidable, thus deterring russia.

No, it doesn't seem you understand that concept of trip wire forces.. You need to think one more step ahead.

yes, the EU might collapse by itself, that's a possibility. That the UK left was probably a good thing.. they've just been in the way of integration, especially in the military field. As for trump.. I think europeans might be more united by their dislike of him, and because of his apparent dislike for us. You're not exactly going to have stellar relations with europe under the trump administration, that's obvious.

No, I don't think Poland is in any immeditate threat. But neither was Ukraine before maidan.. Things can change quickly, so you need to be prepared.

 

How can it be ongoing when Obama was in the White House for the past 8 years? He's a left-wing Democrat.

 

I think sir it is you that doesn't understand a trip wire force. It isn't supposed to be a suicide mission. It is supposed to merely detect the direction and size of enemy forces and try to draw them on to your prepared positions and the killing ground which you have selected in Poland no such positions exist. And while to the EU it mau appear as merely a defensive force to Russia it may seem a possible strike force aimed to foil their plans for the Baltic states or Belaruss and as such it could well cause them to launch an attack they never had any intention to launch other wise gambling that we will choose negotiation over armageddon, which we almost certainly would.

 

An assumption without merit we want to trade and prosper, We don't really much care how you misgovern yourselves provided you don't interfere in the free flow of trade.

 

No seriously, you don't seem understand what it means. Your descprition is not right, I have no idea where you got it from. This isn't a term I just made up, it has a meaning, which you clearly don't understand. It even has a dictionary definition: "trip wire - a small military force that serves as a first line of defense; if they become engaged in hostilities it will trigger the intervention of stronger military forces."
A trip wire force is simply meant to make sure that the whole alliance unavoidably becomes engaged directly, as soon as a member is attacked. From Russia's perspective, tripwire forces eliminates the possibility that the stronger NATO members will abandon the weaker ones in case of an attack, since they would already be directly engaged. Thus, it reduces uncertainty about what would happen if russia attacked, and it increases the certainty that any attack would end with russia being nuked. THUS, russia is unlikely to attack. Therefore it is an effective form of deterrance.

I don't understand what's so hard to understand about this concept...

 

From Clausewitz I describe it's mission you described it's purpose these thing are not incompatible. Do you really thing we're going to have armageddon over two or three combat brigades? That's flipping insane. Granted there was once a war over Jenkin's ear but I'd like to think we've grown up since then.

 

It's reasonable to expect that any country will defend itself if it's forces are directly attacked... You are saying that the USA wouldn't respond if it was attacked? I, and lots of experts, find that hard to believe.

but also, aren't you aware of the RIDICULOUS double standard you are using here? You say that americans would not care if their forces were directly attacked, but on the other hand, you think that Russia is prepared to start a nuclear war just because the USA has troops in the baltics??? You must think the russians are suicidal and utter idiots.

No.. You don't seem to understand nukes either... You know how they work right, that both sides want to avoid using them? Russia is not an irrational actor, they have never been, so why are you arguing as if annihilation-by-nukes is something that russia considers as a viable alternative?

 

It also is an effective way to be drawn into a war that we have no stake in the outcome of until we get in it.

 

Putin stated he would use tactical nukes if Turkey mass invaded Syria.

While Hilary Clinton claimed we could attack the Russian military directly with the American military in Syria, the military Joint Chief of Staff stated before Congress this would be going to war against Russia and that he was absolutely not prepared to go to war against Russia.

The practice of putting a few of our troops somewhere and then daring anyone to attack them has dragged us in many a war, civil war and armed rebellion. It is a scheme used by the militarists to force us into combat and ever increasing buildups for their own massive personal financial profit.

The reason we put troops into Poland is a desperate attempt to preserve the TRILLIONS of dollars in PROFITS from the now 70+ year old Cold War with Russia. It is absurd. The population and economies of Europe VASTLY exceed Russia. Let them defend themselves. They only reason they need us is because we stupidly agree to do their job - the reason being greed and profit, not defense.

 

Hah. The EU is a money pit. They can handle their own (*)(*)(*)(*). We've been saying it since the end of the cold war. Finally someone man enough to admit it.

 

Not just Americans dude there'd be French and British troops as well, and only idiots are interested in a nuclear exchange. Do you really think there won't be calls for negotiations almost immediately after such an attack?

 

well, if Russia directly attacks US/UK/French troops, and I mean with regular outright war not just minor skirmishes or provocations, war will already be a fact and there will be no room for negotiation. That's kind of the point. If the worst thing that could happen is international condemnation and negotiation, that's not much of a deterrance is it? But risking nuclear war.. that is very effective.

of course, no one really knows what either side would do. But they both say they would fight. And this is a good thing, because if that's true it means war would be costly, and as long as everyone is sure of that, war is unlikely to start. Both sides are much safer off if we reduce the amount of uncertainty. To make it clear to Russia that invading a NATO member means a nuke on moscow.. that's how you keep the peace.

 

Merkel appears to have a blind spot regarding radical Islam. Putin does not.

 

Oh, the EU formed post Reagan I believe. But it has good and bad.

1992 actually.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maastricht_Treaty#Ratification

 

Not sure why Merkel is not fully supporting her people.

Back when I was in Germany, I think it took at least 12 years to be a citizen. And most who tried never made it.

Now it looks like open door to all Muslims.

Trump might let them in. Think of a flour sifter. As they lump up, Trump will sift them to find the good ones.

 

So maybe time to show the Atlantic the back and look to the East for the Europeans then?
When I read your term of "Marxist ideology" I still know that you are ancient alien from the past who has not learned anything...

 

Allying with china actually makes a ton of sense for europe. Since the USA is now friends with russia, and turned their backs on us, we dont have much choice. Both parties have lots to gain economically. And our interests do not clash since we are at opposite sides of the earth. Both have an interest to contain russia, and now, also the usa. There are concerns about human rights of course.. but they are less important. We should not take usa's side in conflict with china. Why would we, if they dont side with us against russia? American interests in the pacific matters nothing to us.

 

In my opinion an interim stop at Moscow necessary, but in core I agree with your post.

And for sure … if USA and China become in conflict … for example because this nonsense of these little islands there … it is an own US interest as it was decades ago in Vietnam too which was same way no stuff of NATO and Europe to fight.
But since 2003 I’m unfortunately pretty sure that there are enough European idiots who will follow the US in such a conflict, as they followed this gangster into Iraq.

 

If russia is intent on breaking up the EU, it would be hard to be friends with them. Cant shake hands with a closed fist.

Maybe the UK would join the usa, because they need them against EU, but i dont think the EU would ever join trump in anything.