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.

YeOldSaltPotato wrote:

 KTG17 wrote:
Its ridiculous we have so many resources over in Europe to protect it, while some of the very countries that host us don't even pay the 2% required by NATO.

It might be if we were some how forced to do this, but we've put enough forces out there that why wouldn't they save their own money and do something useful with it?

 Frazzled wrote:

It SHOULD have ended when the Waraw Pact died. It still existing is just bureaucratic bloat and unforgivable. No government entity ever is discontinued. We still have honey subsidies to support our battle with the Hunt.

Do you seriously believe that ending this alliance would not have a negative impact on American influence? That it's some how useless? That it's not been used as an excuse to put American military across the globe under the pretense of this alliance? It's been one of the major tools of US force projection since it came together.

Unless you're getting together with me on this that we shouldn't be spending that much on the military, shouldn't be in those place, and should generally put the money to quite literally anything else, I don't see any merit to this position of yours. I can justify it as a military asset, despite not being huge on most of our military. All I can see in your statement is an isolationist sentiment to the detriment of understanding of the situation.

Honestly if Frazz was alive for the Embargo act of 1807 he probably would of been jumping for joy. Isolationists rarely make sense

 KTG17 wrote:

I don't agree with everything Trump is doing, but I am glad he's hitting NATO hard with commitment issues. Its ridiculous we have so many resources over in Europe to protect it, while some of the very countries that host us don't even pay the 2% required by NATO.

As far as Kim and Putin, I dislike both too, but lets not forget these are all separate issues here.

I don't even think the NATO commitment is really about pushing their spending up to 4% More just a push up to the already agreed commitment, we wont know for sure for a while but I also think it's a building block for future deals, he needs a way to leverage things. It's more or less his sop. Make a big splash, look like a bad guy or a monster then give a little on his stance to get closer to what he is really after.

I don't care about Putin or Kim at all beyond the end of the Korean war, which I see as a good thing. I'll laugh hard when Kim comes to the US asking for a military installation placed in the north to help their economy.
Joe's got money to spend on chicken on a stick,SoJu, juicy girls and bootleg DVD's.

They are not all separate issues, though. They are all linked issues within the context of the post-WW2 world order based on internationalism, rules and liberal democracy which has vastlyy increased wealth and human happiness through mechanisms to try to reduce conflict and increase trade and peaceful interaction.

I understand that Trump wants to overthrow that of course. But he's wrong.

https://index.heritage.org/military/2017/assessments/operating-environment/europe/

 Ensis Ferrae wrote:

 Peregrine wrote:

 Ustrello wrote:
Be careful the evangelicals will call you the anti-christ for calling them too stupid to vote

Evangelicals aren't actually single-issue voters, as demonstrated by how they embraced a proud serial adulterer who can't even name a favorite bible verse (along with all his other moral flaws) because he had an R next to his name. At this point evangelicals are zero-issue voters, anyone with an R gets their vote regardless of their position on any issues.

Here's an interesting look at "evangelicals" written by someone that I can personally attest to knowing his gak.

https://www.christiancentury.org/article/critical-essay/american-evangelicalism-and-politics-whiteness


For some of us, it's academic language for what we already pretty much knew, but for anyone who didn't know, or has an interest in this sort of thing, it could be very interesting.

That was a lot of words to say this....

White evangelicals in the early 21st century display attitudes about issues such as race, war, and immigration that differentiate them from other religious groups. White evangelicals have also become the most reliable bloc of Republican voters.

However, I still read and enjoyed the article a lot. Thanks for posting it.

As a note on the whole Trump somehow winning something at nato note. French President Macron denies Trump claim that NATO powers agreed to increase defense spending beyond previous targets.

They agreed to do what they had previously agreed to do.

YeOldSaltPotato wrote:
As a note on the whole Trump somehow winning something at nato note. French President Macron denies Trump claim that NATO powers agreed to increase defense spending beyond previous targets.

They agreed to do what they had previously agreed to do.

Was going to say they started boosting up spending when Russian invaded Ukraine

Remember when he got NK to agree on the thing they already told SK they would do?

 KTG17 wrote:
Lets be clear we aren't at war with Afghanistan. We are at war with terrorists that are bouncing around inside and out along the Pakistani border. If we wanted to obliterate Afghanistan, we would have. Much the same way we did Germany in WWII.

Well if you really want to be clear, America beating Germany in WW2 has zero to do with the US being unable to win the war in Afghanistan. For all intents and purposes the Taliban was the Afghan government back in 2001. That's like the Nazis still kicking around after 45 inside Germany but saying the US won just because its occupying the place. The idea that the US can just win a war in Afghanistan is not based on anything but national pride. You can't win, just declare it over and leave. Peace with honor and all that. The Taliban/previous government will still be around and potentially retaking Afghanistan from whatever US supported government is in control once the US leaves. Its been 17 years and the Afghan security forces still can't fight the Taliban without Western aid.

 Disciple of Fate wrote:
Well if you really want to be clear, America beating Germany in WW2 has zero to do with the US being unable to win the war in Afghanistan. For all intents and purposes the Taliban was the Afghan government back in 2001. That's like the Nazis still kicking around after 45 inside Germany but saying the US won just because its occupying the place. The idea that the US can just win a war in Afghanistan is not based on anything but national pride. You can't win, just declare it over and leave. Peace with honor and all that. The Taliban/previous government will still be around and potentially retaking Afghanistan from whatever US supported government is in control once the US leaves. Its been 17 years and the Afghan security forces still can't fight the Taliban without Western aid.

If you want to be really clear, let's look at the commitment of the US in Afghanistan: we have 15,000 troops there. If it was a greater priority we'd have a lot more. Obviously we aren't super committed. We have just enough to keep things where they are.

As for the Afghan security forces, that is true, but since the Taliban isn't ruling the country since we are there, I wouldn't say they are winning either. Nor ever will they so long as we are there. *Fact* not national pride.

Is it easy to support the troops in Afghanistan from the USA?

 KTG17 wrote:

 Disciple of Fate wrote:
Well if you really want to be clear, America beating Germany in WW2 has zero to do with the US being unable to win the war in Afghanistan. For all intents and purposes the Taliban was the Afghan government back in 2001. That's like the Nazis still kicking around after 45 inside Germany but saying the US won just because its occupying the place. The idea that the US can just win a war in Afghanistan is not based on anything but national pride. You can't win, just declare it over and leave. Peace with honor and all that. The Taliban/previous government will still be around and potentially retaking Afghanistan from whatever US supported government is in control once the US leaves. Its been 17 years and the Afghan security forces still can't fight the Taliban without Western aid.

If you want to be really clear, let's look at the commitment of the US in Afghanistan: we have 15,000 troops there. If it was a greater priority we'd have a lot more. Obviously we aren't super committed. We have just enough to keep things where they are.

As for the Afghan security forces, that is true, but since the Taliban isn't ruling the country since we are there, I wouldn't say they are winning either. Nor ever will they so long as we are there. *Fact* not national pride.

You had 100.000 troops there and still didn't win. The US has 15.000 there now with what is basically the 'Vietnamization' of Afghanistan with over 300.000 Afghan troops. You didn't win back when you had 7 times as many. There is no shame in admitting its an unwinnable war. Most of the West went there with the US, we all lost, it is what it is.

The only reason the Taliban isn't in control right now is because of overwhelming US firepower, but its just treading water. Saying the US can win in Afghanistan isn't based on facts. The Taliban have proven that without US firepower this is South Vietnam all over again.

All sides have recognized this reality, hence the Afghan government being so desperate for a ceasefire and the Taliban being content to wait, their victory is inevitable, they don't have to go anywhere, its their country. They just have to wait for the US to get bored and move troops to more geopolitically important places.

Is it easy to support the US troops in Afghanistan from the USA?

Just admit the USA cannot defeat a third world country in a war. It is obvious to anyone with a brain.

Id like to thank our British brothers and sisters for doing to Trump what we're unable to do to him over here

Troll the hell out of him.

YeOldSaltPotato wrote:
As a note on the whole Trump somehow winning something at nato note. French President Macron denies Trump claim that NATO powers agreed to increase defense spending beyond previous targets.

They agreed to do what they had previously agreed to do.

What agreement tho? 2002? 2006? All those times that Obama gently admonished the under performing allies? Those agreements?? Last I remember the 2% target was to be met by 2024... less than six years... Germany not on track and others will struggle to meet the target.

Should we be concerned? Or nah and feth Trump?

The issue with afghanistan isnt that the US didnt win, its that we have no win condition, we are there because we're there and we'll continue to be there because we were there

Also, by the time we first went in there in 2001 it was already basically like end times WW2 Germany and was the poorest nation in the world, the place has not seen peace as long as Ive been alive.

 Da Boss wrote:
Just admit the USA cannot defeat a third world country in a war. It is obvious to anyone with a brain.

We are not fighting a third world country. We are fighting a group of terrorists. Anyone with a brain would see that.

But lets say we couldn't. What the hell are we doing in Europe? I am starting to agree with Frazzled. It's amazing that a continent of 741 million people are begging a country of 325 million to protect them from a country of 144 million. Man, Europeans have gotten soft! So sad.

Remember when Obama announced the US Navy was pivoting 60-40 to the Pacific? And the Europeans announced they were 'concerned'? "Oh," they cried, "what about Russia???"

I have an idea: build some don't bypass the language filter like this. Reds8n ships.

Seriously would love to see how long Europe would last before their knees buckled if the US pulled out of Europe and Russia started revving their engines with their sites on a new western Novorossiya! And then the Europeans, desperately realizing their wonderful socialist programs will do nothing against the Russian hordes, will look up and cry, "Help us!" and we'll let Frazz send back the middle finger. Besides, if we can't beat Afghanistan, what could we possible do against Russia? I am sure you guys can handle it.

 Da Boss wrote:
Just admit the USA cannot defeat a third world country in a war. It is obvious to anyone with a brain.

Well, they can defeat the government and organised armed forces which are in place at the beginning of the conflict.

Once that government is pushed out and those armed forces pivot from conventional warfare to guerrilla warfare, it ends up in a deadlock. The US has been unable to secure the assistance of Pakistan to sufficiently cut off the guerrilla forces from being able to withdraw into Pakistan to regroup and rearm in between attacks (this is the kind of situation where political soft power is incredibly important), unable to set up and train a replacement for the removed armed forces and unable to set up a government capable of withstanding the pressure of a prolonged guerrilla conflict without US support.

Russia has been an off again on again threat to Europe since Ivan the Great. No reason for us to be involved now. Communism is dead.

Afghanistan. We went there to kill Al Qaeda. Last I saw Al Qaeda is wasted and Bin Laden had a 5.56 round in his brain pan.

Even without the US, Europe has far more military capability than Russia.

You cannot insult and threaten our leaders and expect us to continue to remain allies. At the moment, your leader has kinder things to say about a murderous dictator who locks people into death camps than his democratically elected allies who have fought with the US when asked. If you guys are sick of "footing the bill" the answer is simple - cut your defense budget. No one is asking you, or has ever asked you, to spend more or suggested that you even keep levels as they are. The US has been insisting that we spend more, which I think is presumptuous and rude, but fair enough, you can ask an ally to do that. And we have been increasing our spending on our schedule.

To barge into an unrelated meeting, late, and start ranting at the leaders of sovereign nations, (apparently he just pointed at Merkel and said "You, Angela.") is disgraceful.

If you cannot see this, then you are lacking in basic manners and respect.

You define it as a terrorist group. But in essence its no different from how a lot of third world governments were formed. They are resistance of the government you overthrew in 2001. The Taliban is not tbe same as Al Qeada.

 Da Boss wrote:
Even without the US, Europe has far more military capability than Russia.

You cannot insult and threaten our leaders and expect us to continue to remain allies. At the moment, your leader has kinder things to say about a murderous dictator who locks people into death camps than his democratically elected allies who have fought with the US when asked. If you guys are sick of "footing the bill" the answer is simple - cut your defense budget. No one is asking you, or has ever asked you, to spend more or suggested that you even keep levels as they are. The US has been insisting that we spend more, which I think is presumptuous and rude, but fair enough, you can ask an ally to do that. And we have been increasing our spending on our schedule.

To barge into an unrelated meeting, late, and start ranting at the leaders of sovereign nations, (apparently he just pointed at Merkel and said "You, Angela.") is disgraceful.

If you cannot see this, then you are lacking in basic manners and respect.

cool. Lets not be allies.

Do you not have a problem with the rudeness of your president? From your response you seem to endorse it. I thought you had better manners than that in America.

 Frazzled wrote:

 Da Boss wrote:
Even without the US, Europe has far more military capability than Russia.

You cannot insult and threaten our leaders and expect us to continue to remain allies. At the moment, your leader has kinder things to say about a murderous dictator who locks people into death camps than his democratically elected allies who have fought with the US when asked. If you guys are sick of "footing the bill" the answer is simple - cut your defense budget. No one is asking you, or has ever asked you, to spend more or suggested that you even keep levels as they are. The US has been insisting that we spend more, which I think is presumptuous and rude, but fair enough, you can ask an ally to do that. And we have been increasing our spending on our schedule.

To barge into an unrelated meeting, late, and start ranting at the leaders of sovereign nations, (apparently he just pointed at Merkel and said "You, Angela.") is disgraceful.

If you cannot see this, then you are lacking in basic manners and respect.

cool. Lets not be allies.

You're not going to like the result of that happening any more than Europe is.

 Da Boss wrote:
Do you not have a problem with the rudeness of your president? From your response you seem to endorse it. I thought you had better manners than that in America.

He's a boor. I can't watch him for more than five minutes without face palming. He still has a point.

Also, wherever did you get from that Americans have manners?

 Frazzled wrote:

 Da Boss wrote:
Do you not have a problem with the rudeness of your president? From your response you seem to endorse it. I thought you had better manners than that in America.

He's a boor. I can't watch him for more than five minutes without face palming. He still has a point.

Also, wherever did you get from that Americans have manners?

Probably dealing with actual Americans and not people who probably have never left the country, scream "murica" and post gakky memes online ie) the vocal minority

 KTG17 wrote:

 Da Boss wrote:
Just admit the USA cannot defeat a third world country in a war. It is obvious to anyone with a brain.

We are not fighting a third world country. We are fighting a group of terrorists. Anyone with a brain would see that.

But lets say we couldn't. What the hell are we doing in Europe? I am starting to agree with Frazzled. It's amazing that a continent of 741 million people are begging a country of 325 million to protect them from a country of 144 million. Man, Europeans have gotten soft! So sad.

Remember when Obama announced the US Navy was pivoting 60-40 to the Pacific? And the Europeans announced they were 'concerned'? "Oh," they cried, "what about Russia???"

I have an idea: build some f***ing ships.

Seriously would love to see how long Europe would last before their knees buckled if the US pulled out of Europe and Russia started revving their engines with their sites on a new western Novorossiya! And then the Europeans, desperately realizing their wonderful socialist programs will do nothing against the Russian hordes

If we're going to talk "hordes", the EU has about 3.5x the population of Russia, and 5-15x the GDP.

The threat with Russia is not a tidal wave of mechanized Ivans thundering through the Fulda gap. Russia has neither the money, the numbers, the geographical position, nor the capabilities for that. Russia's big military threat has been, and will remain for the foreaeeable future, its nuclear arsenal. The US is the deterrent there through NATO on that, and its absolutely in US interests to be that shield given the volume of trade and relationships in other areas with all those nations. NATO allows the US to wield substantially more power than it would otherwise.

With respect to the modern threat Russia poses, it's more about attacks on institutions, energy interruption, electronic warfare and communications disruption, cultural manipulation, astroturf militias, social unrest, etc than about sending the 1st Guards into Paris. Europe should increase its defense spending, but the threat isnt going to be hordes of Russkie invaders.

Maybe we should avoid the war with Russia scenario, given that it always ends up in Russian fantasy land and drag this thing off topic.

Oh look, Rand Paul is doing his usual shtick and pretending he might not vote for Brett Kavanaugh. How unexpected! What high drama! Whatever will he do when it comes down the the wire?

I'm curious as to how Trump's 'Dealmaker' myth has survived his total inability to make a deal since he took office.