From the Guardian (29May2017): As Merkel knows, Trump’s rudeness and arrogance can unite Europe - excerpt: Yes, what can one expect from Donald Dork, this misfit of a politician who wanted to be PotUS just to prove he could "do it". And now hasn't the foggiest notion of what to "do with it". It is sorrowful to note that Trump did not want to uphold the single-most rule of America's longstanding alliance with Europe that is personified by the phrase "we stand together in case any one of us is attacked". Which must have tickled-pink Putin, already having attacked the Ukraine and annexed Crimea ...
I dare say that the free-loading members of NATO, who've been shirking their contributions for all these years, will be very grateful to US taxpayers who are willing to carry on bank-rolling them as they shelter under the NATO umbrella. They're probably thinking 'You suckers!'
LafayetteBis, a thread had already been started on this by the Rhetoric of Life http://www.politicalforum.com/index...etely-rely-on-us-and-britain-any-more.505971/ and it was the top thread when you started this above his..........
Ouppps! Sorry. The site had a multi-hour malfunction yesterday morning (my time here in Europe), and I thought my previous post had not been listed. I looked for it, when the site came back "on", and couldn't find it. So, I reposted once again. My apologies ...
Yup, the fascists are still desperately trying to unite Europe against America. Still trying to re fight WW1 and 2 and win! If we just get rid of America... we can win it this time... Expect to die from a nuke. And not an American one. All you really have to know this, you are either going to be America's bitches, Russia's bitches, my bitches or dead. Stick with America is my advice.
Not sure what you are on about here. http://www.cnsnews.com/news/article...ato-budget-germany-1465-13-allies-pay-below-1 It is true that on this formula 13 countries provide less than 1% but Germany is most certainly not one of them. What is this for - this amount that the US pays 22.144% Germany 14.65 percent France 10.63 percent and the UK 9.84 percent? same link The agreement of 2% spending is basically on the countries own military equipment which of course can be used on other activities than Nato but EU countries did agree to get this to 2% by I think 2024. This seems to be the issue which is being made a song and dance about. The countries unsurprisingly spending the most per capita on this are either those forever at war, those fearing a Russian attack or those that make a lot of money from the sale of weapons!! same link.
This sums it up, and essentially I'm asking why the US should subsidise those freeloading members who want protection but don't want to pay for it. http://money.cnn.com/2016/07/08/news/nato-summit-spending-countries/
MORE AND BETTER OPTIONS FOR THE MONEY SPENT Good question!!! And at what cost to the public in general? Look where that "discretionary" money spent by Uncle Sam out of the National Budget comes from: Some people think that such a huge-portion of that 54% could have been better spent "at home", where 40 million Americans live permanently below the Poverty Threshold. Not as a hand out, but putting them to work and educating their children - because we've long since proved that living below the Threshold has become a permanent family life-style in America. From here: "Economic Inequality in the United States", by By Lars Osberg: All Nato and the above infographic show is that the US has got its "spending priorities" all wrong. There is no need whatsoever that the DoD be the major benefactor of such a huge sum of money spent on Defending the World from God Knows What. (All it does is support the Military-Industrial Complex - one that we have been complaining about for half a century!) Besides, Saddam Hussein is dead and is Iraq any better off for it? The Taliban are taking back Afghanistan despite all the DoD-money wasted there. Don't we have other priorities more close to home that deserve attention? Methinks we do ...
Because it is easier and cheaper to fight your enemy at a choke point. You need less troops. So the river Don in Ukraine is strategically easier to hold vs a German army than the open steppes. You need way less troops. It costs less to deploy in the right place. Geography matters in battle. Germany didn't ask for protection. It was forced on them at gunpoint. Not all of them will welcome it. It is humiliation for them. Plus they may see no threat from Russia. Feel no need. The US subsidises them because it deems it in it's self interest to do so. No one is forcing them. When they no longer do, they will stop. Germany is a logistics hub and half. Useful to America's ambitions. Close to Russia, their unfinished goal.
This is true. However, I think most European countries should spend more on defense, particularly defense of their own individual nations, rather than the excursions in the third world. Norway has basically dissolved its military, and is pretty much solely relying on an American mechanized marine division for any potential invasions. I don't expect Americans to willingly die on our soil for our protection, if we're not willing to put in more effort at defending our own soil ourselves, and I suspect it will hurt the American's morale if there's a fight here, and they don't see too many Norwegians fighting alongside them. We've basically done the exact same thing as we did before WW2. The Americans have different objectives than the Norwegians when it comes to defending Norway. As long as they'll be able to keep Svalbard free of Russian annexation, and keep the ports non-Russian, the Americans will have fulfilled their interests. But any potential invaders could do a lot of harm to Norway by not addressing the US' main interests here, and that's why we also need a proper national defense, which we're sadly lacking these days.
For what reason would anybody want to invade Norway? Or any Scandanavian country, for that matter. For what benefit?
To be clear, I don't view the "Red Dawn"-scenario, with a full invasion being plausible at all, but there's lots of ways any foreign power could project their military force against Norway, and for that, a proper defense is necessary. I don't see it as a too realistic threat in the near future, but both the EU, and Russia has interests in Norway. The EU has the ability to reach those goals without military intervention so far, but Russia still has a lot to gain from annexing certain parts of Norway, or in some other way bring us under the heel to agree with their terms. For example Svalbard. So far, the situation is stable. Neither NATO, Norway, the EU or Russia have put any military technology or armed forces there, due to the Svalbard treaty. But if someone here, or abroad made the Svalbard Treaty obsolete, Russia would have a great interest in taking it, to ensure the safety or their SSBN-bastions, and to keep their nuclear deterrence potent. While NATO and the EU would have a great interest in keeping it out of Russian hands, even more so than Norway. Also, we've got ice free ports all year around. Russia has no such thing in the western hemisphere. Russia having access to those ports would benefit them greatly. And the EU would benefit greatly by keeping those ports out of Russian hands. Then there's the whole access to Norwegian commercial waters. Also, the EU has interests in Norwegian mainland energy production. Even when the oil runs out, we've got absolute shitloads of hydroelectric energy, and thorium. And we've got the will to keep those things nationalized. Russia has no much need for this though, but Germany and France do. Of course we would lose any total war with any of those powers, but by having a decent defense, we could make the costs of taking it outweigh the benefits of taking it.
Aint gonna happin. The idea is insane. There is no way in hell that the EU will stand-by and do nothing. And why should anybody trigger another world-war? For what purpose? Which country would be so crazy? Russia? China? Botswana .... ?
Annexing territories or otherwise breaching a nation's sovereignty will not necessarily trigger a world war. Russia did so in Ukraine, and it did not trigger a world war. For Norway, it's not realistic to think a war or any sort of armed conflict with China and Botswana is possible in the next fifty years. But Russia is not too far fetched. Neither is a conflict with the EU, or France, or Germany. It's unlikely, but possible. Can't put all our eggs in the US nuclear deterrence basket, because we have no real influence over the US, and can't really decide for them who they are going to protect. But we can decide for ourselves if we're willing to protect ourselves. And yes, the EU would not stand by and do nothing, but they're also operating in their own interests. If their interests aren't threatened by whatever some warmongerer does, they'll stand by and do nothing. They're not thinking of our interests, and any power willing to do whatever with us knows that.
The EU would be so crazy. Got a bit warm in Ukraine recently. Why would they be so crazy? Blind ambition and conceit in their own self superiority. They don't believe they can start a war. They think they are too reasonable. They think no one will really do it. They think that deep down, you will be forced by logic to agree with them. So they can push their luck as far as they like because everyone is far to smart to get into a war with... a load of limp wristed pansies. Righto.
Just an example of how narrow minded the EU-commission is; That whole Svalbard treaty is currently under threat as a direct result of the EU's meddling. They want to deploy some part of the Gallileo system on Svalbard, and our own fools follow through on their wishes. This is a clear breach of the Svalbard Treaty, and will force the Russians to react, since this system really is primarily a military system.
Seems like the EU has united United Kingdom to United States when we talk about special relationships.
Iran, North Korea, and others. It didn't make sense to many when Hitler ran through Poland, France, and the rest of Europe. Don't think it can't happen again.
Very unlikely. Who is going "run through Europe" the way the Nazis did? You are pipe-dreaming, maybe ... ?
They said that about Napoleon too. And then Hitler did the same. It never ends. Sooner or later people get complacent and forget that it is possible and then... it happens again. Wait for an EU army. Once they have that, they are ready to use it. Just needing an excuse.
