Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

Albatross wrote:You don't know anything about this, or any other topic.

Mmmm, yea.

Please point where in the US Constitution it says the US has to jeopardize its cities and spend vast amounts of treasure to defend Europe from an empire that no longer exists. The very thought lacks sanity.

Frazzled wrote:

Albatross wrote:You don't know anything about this, or any other topic.

Mmmm, yea.

Please point where in the US Constitution it says the US has to jeopardize its cities and spend vast amounts of treasure to defend Europe from an empire that no longer exists. The very thought lacks sanity.

Ah, yeah - I forgot you were a scriptural constitutionalist. You can go ahead and disregard the parts of my posts that assume that you are rational and emotionally secure.

If you can't see the benefits of a first line of defence for the USA in continental Europe, then I can't really help you I'm afraid. You seem to think about complex issues in childishly simplistic terms.

Albatross wrote:

Frazzled wrote:

Albatross wrote:You don't know anything about this, or any other topic.

Mmmm, yea.

Please point where in the US Constitution it says the US has to jeopardize its cities and spend vast amounts of treasure to defend Europe from an empire that no longer exists. The very thought lacks sanity.

Ah, yeah - I forgot you were a scriptural constitutionalist. You can go ahead and disregard the parts of my posts that assume that you are rational and emotionally secure.

If you can't see the benefits of a first line of defence for the USA in continental Europe, then I can't really help you I'm afraid. You seem to think about complex issues in childishly simplistic terms.

Really? Ok, lets have the UK pay tens of billiions to put a nuclear shield over the US and Mexico then. If you can't see the benefits of a first line of defence for Europe in the continental US, then I can't really help you I am afraid.

EDIT: I like the personal insults, but thats generally what I've come to expect.

Albatross wrote:If you can't see the benefits of a first line of defence for the USA in continental Europe, then I can't really help you I'm afraid. You seem to think about complex issues in childishly simplistic terms.

So what are the benefits exactly? Or is this one of those trick answers, where rather than say any benefits you just declare anyone who disagrees with you an idiot?

There's very little threat of actual invasion anymore... it's mostly threats of insurgents and terrorists.

Melissia wrote:There's very little threat of actual invasion right now... it's mostly threats of insurgents and terrorists.

Fixed that for you.

To think that its not ever going to be an issue in the future is myopic at best.

Monster Rain wrote:

Melissia wrote:There's very little threat of actual invasion right now... it's mostly threats of insurgents and terrorists.

Fixed that for you.

To think that its not ever going to be an issue in the future is myopic at best.

No gak Captain Sherlock McObviouspants.

Melissia wrote:

Monster Rain wrote:

Melissia wrote:There's very little threat of actual invasion right now... it's mostly threats of insurgents and terrorists.

Fixed that for you.

To think that its not ever going to be an issue in the future is myopic at best.

No gak Captain Sherlock McObviouspants.

O_o.

I'm taking this as an admission that the statement that I corrected for you was in fact nonsense. Or are you just posting foolishly on purpose?

Monster Rain wrote:

Melissia wrote:There's very little threat of actual invasion right now... it's mostly threats of insurgents and terrorists.

Fixed that for you.

To think that its not ever going to be an issue in the future is myopic at best.

That indeed may be the case.
1. Again how in any way does that benefit the US?
2. The same argument can be made about, well, anything. By that logic our only prudent course is to nuke the world from orbit. Its the only way to be sure.

"I thought policy was to make the world England?"

Frazzled wrote:

Monster Rain wrote:

Melissia wrote:There's very little threat of actual invasion right now... it's mostly threats of insurgents and terrorists.

Fixed that for you.

To think that its not ever going to be an issue in the future is myopic at best.

That indeed may be the case.
1. Again how in any way does that benefit the US?

What, the missile shield?

Monster Rain wrote:

Frazzled wrote:

Monster Rain wrote:

Melissia wrote:There's very little threat of actual invasion right now... it's mostly threats of insurgents and terrorists.

Fixed that for you.

To think that its not ever going to be an issue in the future is myopic at best.

That indeed may be the case.
1. Again how in any way does that benefit the US?

What, the missile shield?

Ah, yes, to be clear, the missile shield.
1. It costs a lot of money.
2. It puts the US in jeopardy. If a nuke exchange occurs, it would be utterly irresistable for there to be a nuclear or non nuclear counterstrike. We would get involved and be part of that counterstrike.
3. None of that protects US terroritories. We've done this so long, we've forgotten what our focus is, the US. Unfortunately the debt siotuation is about to correct that, whether we like it or not.

No, what I said was relevant to today's political environment and the political environment of the foreseeable future.

It was not non-sensical because, even though it is theoretically true that invasion possibly a may be threat that might potentially occur sometime in the distant future if something dramatic changes in the political situation, maintaining an obsessively/excessively paranoid outlook on every country with even an ounce of military strength due to imagined future threats from them doesn't exactly speak much of mental health.

Meanwhile, working with other nations on mutually beneficial projects lends us assistance in removing REAL threats that are occurring RIGHT NOW. You may consider this myopic, but if you're looking too far in the distance you might end up tripping over the rock that's right in front of you-- Hyperopia instead of myopia. Thus why working with Russia is better than antagonizing them-- their leaders are actually helping us fight terrorists in Afghanistan, despite outcries from some of their more extreme political elements.

Frazzled wrote:

Monster Rain wrote:

Frazzled wrote:

Monster Rain wrote:

Melissia wrote:There's very little threat of actual invasion right now... it's mostly threats of insurgents and terrorists.

Fixed that for you.

To think that its not ever going to be an issue in the future is myopic at best.

That indeed may be the case.
1. Again how in any way does that benefit the US?

What, the missile shield?

Ah, yes, to be clear, the missile shield.
1. It costs a lot of money.
2. It puts the US in jeopardy. If a nuke exchange occurs, it would be utterly irresistable for there to be a nuclear or non nuclear counterstrike. We would get involved and be part of that counterstrike.
3. None of that protects US terroritories. We've done this so long, we've forgotten what our focus is, the US. Unfortunately the debt siotuation is about to correct that, whether we like it or not.

Well I frankly don't see why we need to put up shields and reduce our nuclear stockpile at the same time.

Wouldn't just doing one of those things work?

Either way, I think this is more about diplomacy than actual missiles. Everybody gets together and feels good about teamwork.

Melissia wrote:Meanwhile, working with other nations on mutually beneficial projects lends us assistance in removing REAL threats that are occurring RIGHT NOW.

I don't see why there isn't room for both strategies, that's all.

Melissia wrote:No, what I said was relevant to today's political environment and the political environment of the foreseeable future.

It was not non-sensical because, even though it is theoretically true that invasion possibly a may be threat that might potentially occur sometime in the distant future if something dramatic changes in the political situation, maintaining an obsessively/excessively paranoid outlook on every country with even an ounce of military strength due to imagined future threats from them doesn't exactly speak much of mental health.

Meanwhile, working with other nations on mutually beneficial projects lends us assistance in removing REAL threats that are occurring RIGHT NOW. You may consider this myopic, but if you're looking too far in the distance you might end up tripping over the rock that's right in front of you-- Hyperopia instead of myopia.

Further, if we work under that assumption, that threats can arise anywhere over time, it is prudent to address that directly. Have systems in place that can defend the US. This doesn't do that, only ensares us in something costly now, and something utterly lethal later.

AlmightyWalrus wrote:Why do I get the feeling that the Republicans will try to stop this just because they can?

Frazzled wrote:I have a better idea. Disband NATO. The time of the American Empire is over. Let Europe take care of itself.

Washington had it right. no foreign entanglements.

Because Walrus, you're pretty much correct.

I don't think Frazz is a Republican though.

Monster Rain wrote:I don't think Frazz is a Republican though.

Not by my voting record, unless you mean French Republican. Death to the Monarchy!

Frazzled wrote:

Monster Rain wrote:I don't think Frazz is a Republican though.

Not by my voting record, unless you mean French Republican. Death to the Monarchy!

What is your voting record?

ShumaGorath wrote:

Frazzled wrote:

Monster Rain wrote:I don't think Frazz is a Republican though.

Not by my voting record, unless you mean French Republican. Death to the Monarchy!

What is your voting record?

Its on record.

Frazzled wrote:

ShumaGorath wrote:

Frazzled wrote:

Monster Rain wrote:I don't think Frazz is a Republican though.

Not by my voting record, unless you mean French Republican. Death to the Monarchy!

What is your voting record?

Its on record.

What is your voting record?

ShumaGorath wrote:

Frazzled wrote:

ShumaGorath wrote:

Frazzled wrote:

Monster Rain wrote:I don't think Frazz is a Republican though.

Not by my voting record, unless you mean French Republican. Death to the Monarchy!

What is your voting record?

Its on record.

What is your voting record?

I vote. Whats your question?

Frazzled wrote:

ShumaGorath wrote:

Frazzled wrote:

ShumaGorath wrote:

Frazzled wrote:

Monster Rain wrote:I don't think Frazz is a Republican though.

Not by my voting record, unless you mean French Republican. Death to the Monarchy!

What is your voting record?

Its on record.

What is your voting record?

I vote. Whats your question?

The question is who do you vote for if your voting record shows that you're not a republican?

ShumaGorath wrote:

Frazzled wrote:

ShumaGorath wrote:

Frazzled wrote:

ShumaGorath wrote:

Frazzled wrote:

Monster Rain wrote:I don't think Frazz is a Republican though.

Not by my voting record, unless you mean French Republican. Death to the Monarchy!

What is your voting record?

Its on record.

What is your voting record?

I vote. Whats your question?

The question is who do you vote for if your voting record shows that you're not a republican?

It depends on the election. I don't vote party line. How about you Shuma? Ever vote for a Republican?

Frazzled wrote:

ShumaGorath wrote:

Frazzled wrote:

ShumaGorath wrote:

Frazzled wrote:

ShumaGorath wrote:

Frazzled wrote:

Monster Rain wrote:I don't think Frazz is a Republican though.

Not by my voting record, unless you mean French Republican. Death to the Monarchy!

What is your voting record?

Its on record.

What is your voting record?

I vote. Whats your question?

The question is who do you vote for if your voting record shows that you're not a republican?

It depends on the election. I don't vote party line. How about you Shuma? Ever vote for a Republican?

Once for a local position, but not generally. Republicans are bad at finance. Besides, I'm not the one stating that I'm "not republican because of my voting record". You ever voted for a democrat? Or are you counting tea party votes as "non republican".

Monster Rain wrote:

Frazzled wrote:

Monster Rain wrote:

Frazzled wrote:

Monster Rain wrote:

Melissia wrote:There's very little threat of actual invasion right now... it's mostly threats of insurgents and terrorists.

Fixed that for you.

To think that its not ever going to be an issue in the future is myopic at best.

That indeed may be the case.
1. Again how in any way does that benefit the US?

What, the missile shield?

Ah, yes, to be clear, the missile shield.
1. It costs a lot of money.
2. It puts the US in jeopardy. If a nuke exchange occurs, it would be utterly irresistable for there to be a nuclear or non nuclear counterstrike. We would get involved and be part of that counterstrike.
3. None of that protects US terroritories. We've done this so long, we've forgotten what our focus is, the US. Unfortunately the debt siotuation is about to correct that, whether we like it or not.

Well I frankly don't see why we need to put up shields and reduce our nuclear stockpile at the same time.

Wouldn't just doing one of those things work?

Either way, I think this is more about diplomacy than actual missiles. Everybody gets together and feels good about teamwork.

Melissia wrote:Meanwhile, working with other nations on mutually beneficial projects lends us assistance in removing REAL threats that are occurring RIGHT NOW.

I don't see why there isn't room for both strategies, that's all.

I would argue that the shield itself is reason enough to de-stock on the Nukes. Only reason you need so many (way in excess of anything vaguely reasonable forcesque) is to engender Mutually Assured Destruction. The shield takes care of a large part of that, seeing as you can (in theory) wait for your opponent to blow his wad, then tactically gakker whatever you want to.

And I still say we flatten certain parts of the middle east. Evil I know, but seems like there is no other way sometimes.

ShumaGorath wrote:

Frazzled wrote:

ShumaGorath wrote:

Frazzled wrote:

ShumaGorath wrote:

Frazzled wrote:

ShumaGorath wrote:

Frazzled wrote:

Monster Rain wrote:I don't think Frazz is a Republican though.

Not by my voting record, unless you mean French Republican. Death to the Monarchy!

What is your voting record?

Its on record.

What is your voting record?

I vote. Whats your question?

The question is who do you vote for if your voting record shows that you're not a republican?

It depends on the election. I don't vote party line. How about you Shuma? Ever vote for a Republican?

Once for a local position, but not generally. Republicans are bad at finance. Besides, I'm not the one stating that I'm "not republican because of my voting record". You ever voted for a democrat? Or are you counting tea party votes as "non republican".

I've voted Green Party, Republican, Democrat, Libertarian, and for Nader/Perot at different times. At heart I am a Bull Moose!

Mr Mystery wrote:I would argue that the shield itself is reason enough to de-stock on the Nukes. Only reason you need so many (way in excess of anything vaguely reasonable forcesque) is to engender Mutually Assured Destruction. The shield takes care of a large part of that, seeing as you can (in theory) wait for your opponent to blow his wad, then tactically gakker whatever you want to.

And I still say we flatten certain parts of the middle east. Evil I know, but seems like there is no other way sometimes.

There's a lot of good reasons to slow down on the nukes. I don't know if the shield itself is such a good reason though. All that is predicated on it actually working.

And yeah, some parts of the world sure could use a good smack.

Monster Rain wrote:

Mr Mystery wrote:I would argue that the shield itself is reason enough to de-stock on the Nukes. Only reason you need so many (way in excess of anything vaguely reasonable forcesque) is to engender Mutually Assured Destruction. The shield takes care of a large part of that, seeing as you can (in theory) wait for your opponent to blow his wad, then tactically gakker whatever you want to.

And I still say we flatten certain parts of the middle east. Evil I know, but seems like there is no other way sometimes.

There's a lot of good reasons to slow down on the nukes. I don't know if the shield itself is such a good reason though. All that is predicated on it actually working.

And yeah, some parts of the world sure could use a good smack.

One day, Leichtenstein will pay for its evil.

In other news

I don't think they'd go to all that trouble if the system was a bit ropey.

Mind you, hell of an enticer to get certain countries to belt up. Not the threat of retaliation free nukings by us, but the offer of a little shield space. After all, if everyone has a nuke shield, what's the blood point? We'll see how hard certain countries rattle their sabre once it comes to a good old fashioned slug fest!

BearersOfSalvation wrote:

Albatross wrote:If you can't see the benefits of a first line of defence for the USA in continental Europe, then I can't really help you I'm afraid. You seem to think about complex issues in childishly simplistic terms.

So what are the benefits exactly? Or is this one of those trick answers, where rather than say any benefits you just declare anyone who disagrees with you an idiot?

There are a number of threats to the US which could arise closer to continental Europe than mainland USA. A strategic presence in Europe is important to the USAs defence, or else it wouldn't be there. Don't get me wrong - I understand that populist press of the sort typically swallowed hook-line-and-sinker by American neo-cons likes to paint complex geo-political situations in crudely jingoistic broadbrush terms, and that the natural end-result of that is opinion along the lines of 'why do we have to defend europe? They should pay for their own damn defence!!1!!one!'. Doesn't stop it being frustrating for the rest of us to have to listen to that - and I'll repeat the term once again - facile nonsense.

NATO isn't altruism. Don't let yourself be manipulated. Anymore.