|
As if NATO really needs the 2% defense spending. As long as the nuclear deterrent is still there, you don't need tanks or planes to defend against another nation state and as long as the USA doesn't go full Russia w.r.t. supporting autocratic regimes the war on terror will certainly not be won by military interventions, who are often not even covered by the NATO treaty but instead just use NATO facilities as support infrastructure. The only reason why Trump and others are bringing it up again and again is because they can say "more military" without having to explain how they are going to pay for it without new taxes or other budget cuts.
|
|
#
?
Jul 24, 2016 16:52
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 15, 2024 06:15 |
|
|
Friendly Humour posted:Any member that matters. A common defence agreement only matters if potential aggressor nations believe that it will be acted upon. If nobody thinks that Germany or Poland won't send in the tanks and go Barbarossa 2: Electric Boogaloo should Russia do something with, say, the ethnic Russians in Estonia and Latvia who aren't actually citizens of those nations, then Russia has no reason to fear much in the way of repercussions.
|
|
#
?
Jul 24, 2016 20:30
|
|
|
GaussianCopula posted:As if NATO really needs the 2% defense spending. As long as the nuclear deterrent is still there, you don't need tanks or planes to defend against another nation state and as long as the USA doesn't go full Russia w.r.t. supporting autocratic regimes the war on terror will certainly not be won by military interventions, who are often not even covered by the NATO treaty but instead just use NATO facilities as support infrastructure. It really needs to be something. Like more than half of NATO is 1.2 or less%  The USA is also having trouble hitting our recruitment requirements for our current commitments. Now, I'm certainly one of those Americans who'd like to see American thresholds for getting involved in countries we have no defense treaties with substantially increased. But look at the gulf between our commitment and the rest of NATO just as a portion of GDP. This arrangement is not sustainable forever. We're going to have our own budget crisis in a decade or two regarding social security, and what's not likely to survive budget cuts? Military protecting far off corners of the world or social security for voters at home? Nitrousoxide fucked around with this message at 20:50 on Jul 24, 2016 |
|
#
?
Jul 24, 2016 20:46
|
|
|
Nitrousoxide posted:We're going to have our own budget crisis in a decade or two regarding social security, and what's not likely to survive budget cuts? Military protecting far off corners of the world or social security for voters at home? It's probably the social security.
|
|
#
?
Jul 24, 2016 20:54
|
|
|
I'm pretty sure you could take a serious chunk out of the US' military spending and effect nothing except that they have to buy new jets every other year instead of yearly. As for the recruitment troubles, that might be because of the fraudulent wars and the fact that they treat vets like dogshit.
|
|
#
?
Jul 24, 2016 21:01
|
|
|
Nitrousoxide posted:
but what of that is really a NATO issue? Americas hobby of killing Muslims and destabilizing countries in the Middle East you can finance yourself thank you very much.
|
|
#
?
Jul 24, 2016 21:02
|
|
|
There is also the fact that for the USA most of their defense spending stays in the country as some kind of stimulus while many other countries need to import their military hardware, which makes it impossible to fairly compare the impact defense spending has on a different countries. There would be a lot of angry people in the US if they decided to cut defense spending, because their seat in Congress or livelihood depends on it.
|
|
|
#
?
Jul 24, 2016 21:18
|
|
|
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2016/jul/26/men-hostages-french-church-police-normandy-saint-etienne-du-rouvray Two men who took hostages in a church in France’s northern Normandy region have been shot dead, according to French media reports. The men, armed with knives, had taken several people hostage in a church in Saint-Étienne-du-Rouvray, police told Reuters. French media reported that five hostages were being held, and that a sixth escaped and raised the alarm. A priest, two nuns and two worshippers were reported to be among the hostages.
|
|
#
?
Jul 26, 2016 10:19
|
|
|
The new normal.
|
|
#
?
Jul 26, 2016 10:25
|
|
|
So how long before European terror attacks/attempts are no longer even headline worthy? Another week?
|
|
#
?
Jul 26, 2016 10:27
|
|
|
Baloogan posted:The new normal. It's the law of talion. A new normal for a new normal. 
|
|
#
?
Jul 26, 2016 10:28
|
|
|
Mr. Gibbycrumbles posted:So how long before European terror attacks/attempts are no longer even headline worthy? Another week? Next tuesday.
|
|
#
?
Jul 26, 2016 10:28
|
|
|
gently caress it looks bad: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2016/07/26/two-men-with-knifes-take-hostages-in-normandy-church/
|
|
#
?
Jul 26, 2016 10:43
|
|
|
The priest got his throat slit, loving gruesome.
|
|
#
?
Jul 26, 2016 10:55
|
|
|
So how long is this going to go on until the retaliation attacks start ticking up?
|
|
#
?
Jul 26, 2016 11:02
|
|
|
Friendly Humour posted:So how long is this going to go on until the retaliation attacks start ticking up? I'll give it until Friday at most at the current rate.
|
|
#
?
Jul 26, 2016 11:12
|
|
|
Friendly Humour posted:So how long is this going to go on until the retaliation attacks start ticking up? Well, from the look of it France responds to the whiff of terrorism by sending billions of Euros worth of weapons to Saudi Arabia:  (from http://www.spiegel.de/international/europe/eu-makes-controversial-weapons-sales-to-saudi-arabia-a-822288.html)
|
|
#
?
Jul 26, 2016 11:17
|
|
|
Friendly Humour posted:So how long is this going to go on until the retaliation attacks start ticking up? Have you missed the French ISIS bombing campaign?
|
|
#
?
Jul 26, 2016 11:20
|
|
|
waitwhatno posted:Have you missed the French ISIS bombing campaign? That's not what I'm talking about.
|
|
#
?
Jul 26, 2016 11:21
|
|
|
I'm assuming you mean anti-Muslim progroms.
|
|
#
?
Jul 26, 2016 11:25
|
|
|
Friendly Humour posted:That's not what I'm talking about. Do you mean counter-attacks by organised right-wing terrorism, which is like totally a thing?
|
|
#
?
Jul 26, 2016 11:25
|
|
|
Mr. Gibbycrumbles posted:Do you mean counter-attacks by organised right-wing terrorism, which is like totally a thing? I like the very carefully-added 'organised' in this sentence.
|
|
#
?
Jul 26, 2016 11:34
|
|
|
Mr. Gibbycrumbles posted:Do you mean counter-attacks by organised right-wing terrorism, which is like totally a thing? We already have that in Germany. Over a thousand cases of vandalism against refugee homes in the last year, ~100 cases of arson. Outspoken national socialist movements organizing patrols through the cities, closet right wing groups too. Some decent amount of violence. Probably not going to be any outright murders for some time though, natives are not that motivated nor desperate enough to murder for their lovely ideology. Way too busy with work, family and hobbies for that.
|
|
#
?
Jul 26, 2016 11:51
|
|
|
Nitrousoxide posted:Now, I'm certainly one of those Americans who'd like to see American thresholds for getting involved in countries we have no defense treaties with substantially increased. But look at the gulf between our commitment and the rest of NATO just as a portion of GDP. I think a fixation on the 2% of GDp is wrong. Latvia, a country with 2 million people and a GDP of 28 billion $, won't become any more able to resist a Russian invasion if it doubles it defense spending from 1% to 2% of GDP. Likewise, it wouldn't save the USA any money. There's just a lot of redundancy among the NATO members outside the USA. It would be better to make a plan what each country should contribute to NATO, so that they can truly complement US forces. The small nations would mainly contribute (ground) troops, while the bigger coastal nations would bring the navy units, etc. And lastly, US defense spending could be a lot lower if you guys stopped doing stupid poo poo. Like invading Iraq for example. Edit: Also, the real people you should be mad about are the non-NATO members that massively profit from US protection but are working to undermine you, like Israel or especially Saudi Arabia. Europeans hurt their own economies to put sanctions on Iran. The EU sanctions (+ Russia and China) were instrumental in bringing Iran to the negotiating table, since the Iranians mainly divested themselves from the US economy. We are your "real" allies, it's a reciprocal relationship (see NATO involvement in Afghanistan). Others just take advantage of you without offering anything in return. Torrannor fucked around with this message at 11:59 on Jul 26, 2016 |
|
#
?
Jul 26, 2016 11:53
|
|
|
waitwhatno posted:Probably not going to be any outright murders for some time though, natives are not that motivated nor desperate enough to murder for their lovely ideology. Way too busy with work, family and hobbies for that. Hahaha "natives". You can say white, it's okay. We know what you mean.
|
|
#
?
Jul 26, 2016 12:01
|
|
|
Kassad posted:Hahaha "natives". You can say white, it's okay. We know what you mean. If I meant white I would have said white. 20% of the native population has an immigrant background, so a lot of them wouldn't be able to pass an AfD approved paper bag test. We don't really have a concept of race like the US does, so we can't just call everyone we like white. White actually means white skin color over here. Like, one individual Arab can be white, while another would already be a dirty darkie. Same for Spaniards or Turks. It would blow your mind. 
|
|
#
?
Jul 26, 2016 12:31
|
|
|
Dawncloack posted:It's the law of talion. This cartoon is irrelevant cause those are French people comitting these attacks. "We" didn't bomb "their" civilians, we are their civilians.
|
|
#
?
Jul 26, 2016 12:31
|
|
|
waitwhatno posted:If I meant white I would have said white. 20% of the native population has an immigrant background, so a lot of them wouldn't be able to pass an AfD approved paper bag test. Yeah, when I was down in Bavaria many of the locals had a natural tan colour of their skin that makes it very difficult to consider them 'white' - there is a world of difference between them and the white Aryan fantasised by racists.
|
|
#
?
Jul 26, 2016 12:42
|
|
|
Tesseraction posted:Yeah, when I was down in Bavaria many of the locals had a natural tan colour of their skin that makes it very difficult to consider them 'white' - there is a world of difference between them and the white Aryan fantasised by racists.
|
|
#
?
Jul 26, 2016 12:45
|
|
|
A Buttery Pastry posted:It's a well known fact that outside Lower Saxony, Germans are a swarthy people. Lies, Danish lies. We are the purest of pure snow people, our skin is as pale as a window curtain flying in the cold winter air. Didn't you breed with the Finns for a while yourself? You are what now, 97% Mongol?
|
|
#
?
Jul 26, 2016 12:55
|
|
|
waitwhatno posted:Lies, Danish lies. We are the purest of pure snow people, our skin is as pale as a window curtain flying in the cold winter air. waitwhatno posted:Didn't you breed with the Finns for a while yourself? You are what now, 97% Mongol?
|
|
#
?
Jul 26, 2016 12:58
|
|
|
GaussianCopula posted:As if NATO really needs the 2% defense spending. As long as the nuclear deterrent is still there, you don't need tanks or planes to defend against another nation state and as long as the USA doesn't go full Russia w.r.t. supporting autocratic regimes the war on terror will certainly not be won by military interventions, who are often not even covered by the NATO treaty but instead just use NATO facilities as support infrastructure. Nuclear deterrent didn't stop Russia from going into Ukraine. They're playing the creeping game. The final stage of which is invading a "lesser" NATO member and receiving no response. Russia realises America won't commit and then it gobbles up Eastern Europe. Not saying that's going to happen. I'm saying I think that's Russia's optimum projection for its expansionism.
|
|
#
?
Jul 26, 2016 13:23
|
|
|
Straight up invading 'lesser' nato member probably won't get them nuked but America will absolutely gently caress them wth regular bombs, stopping just short of actually entering Russia. It would also cause Poland and every eastern nato member to mobilise all their reserves.
|
|
#
?
Jul 26, 2016 13:36
|
|
|
Kurtofan posted:This cartoon is irrelevant cause those are French people comitting these attacks. "We" didn't bomb "their" civilians, we are their civilians. I explained it back in the old thread. The people committing the attacks, as hosed up and horrible as it is, simply see the civilians being bombed in Syria as their kin, and so they wage guerilla war against those who they do not see as kin (the christian whites ordering, aiding and abetting those attacks). Our countries, and I include mine, are neck deep in killing muslims for their oil, the distinction of "oh but they are French nationals, we are the civilians/victims" just doesn't work. One, I cannot dictate to anybody to whom he or she relates, and bringing up their nationality simply is a non sequitur. Two, if you are comitting heinous acts then don't be surprised when someone who identifies with a meaningless, invented distinction(religion) shared with the victims commits henious acts against you. That person sure is not going to mind that he or she shares a meaningless, invented distinction (nationality) with you.
|
|
#
?
Jul 26, 2016 13:52
|
|
|
i think higher defense spending is better than relying on nuking yourself but thats just me IMO a war in eastern europe isnt worth starting nucleopocalypse over anyway. Why actually pull the trigger? You arn't doing anyone any favors; Occupied (country) is better off under Putin than it is glowing in the dark. I think as time goes on that will become more and more settled policy. There's no communist threat coming for our fluids. A detente reliant on conventional forces is far more preferable. TheDeadlyShoe fucked around with this message at 13:56 on Jul 26, 2016 |
|
#
?
Jul 26, 2016 13:54
|
|
|
Demiurge4 posted:Straight up invading 'lesser' nato member probably won't get them nuked but America will absolutely gently caress them wth regular bombs, stopping just short of actually entering Russia. Not if Trump wins.
|
|
#
?
Jul 26, 2016 13:55
|
|
|
Ukraine was not a NATO member and the Crimea already had a Russian base. Additionally the Ukraine was in revolution mode, which makes the whole affair a lot murkier. Not saying that Putin didn't break international law but you can't compare that situation to an actual invasion of a NATO and EU member state, who have a fully functioning, fully funded military that is integrated into NATO.
|
|
|
#
?
Jul 26, 2016 13:57
|
|
|
GaussianCopula posted:Ukraine was not a NATO member and the Crimea already had a Russian base. Additionally the Ukraine was in revolution mode, which makes the whole affair a lot murkier.  Fifth column identified.
|
|
#
?
Jul 26, 2016 14:04
|
|
|
Regarde Aduck posted:Nuclear deterrent didn't stop Russia from going into Ukraine. Because Ukraine gave up their nuclear deterrent in the 90s and never signed on with anyone else to provide one. So I'm not sure how you think nuclear deterrents that didn't exist could have stopped anything?
|
|
#
?
Jul 26, 2016 14:04
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 15, 2024 06:15 |
|
|
Regarde Aduck posted:Nuclear deterrent didn't stop Russia from going into Ukraine. They're playing the creeping game. The final stage of which is invading a "lesser" NATO member and receiving no response. Russia realises America won't commit and then it gobbles up Eastern Europe. What is this even ... what? Why would Russia want to occupy any European countries(even if they magically somehow could do this)? That's like trying to put a potato sack full of rabid cats on your head. I blame Tom Clancy and grand strategy video games for this poo poo. Paradox, I'm looking at you here! 
|
|
#
?
Jul 26, 2016 14:11
|
|