"Same old"? If the Germans wanted US troops to leave their country they would not have not fight! There is vast difference between occupation and alliance. The Poles have offered $2bn for the US to station troops in Poland as a counter the Muscovites. It is not 'occupation' - you do not get tell the country who will be PM/President or what their laws should be - it is willing alliance. Get over your Muscovite moral equivalence.
Announcement
Collapse
No announcement yet.
2018 American Political Scene
Collapse
This topic is closed.
X
X
-
Originally posted by snapper View Post"Same old"? If the Germans wanted US troops to leave their country they would not have not fight! There is vast difference between occupation and alliance. The Poles have offered $2bn for the US to station troops in Poland as a counter the Muscovites. It is not 'occupation' - you do not get tell the country who will be PM/President or what their laws should be - it is willing alliance. Get over your Muscovite moral equivalence.
Comment
-
Originally posted by astralis View Post5. the intelligent thing to do would be to bulk up Western Europe to deter the Russians while funneling still more resources against the China problem.
A bulked up WE also couldn't have prevented Crimea. Or Russian troll farms spreading fake news.Last edited by Firestorm; 23 Jul 18,, 20:58.
Comment
-
Originally posted by astralis View Postrj1,
it's not an incredibly new world, it's a return from the post-Cold War world of the 1990s (where the US could intervene anywhere) to the "post-WWII world"...aka the Cold War. generally speaking we're not going to intervene if the place in question is not under our sphere of influence/allied/has some sort of US security guarantee. none of which applied to Ukraine in 2014-2015, nor Georgia in 2008.
however, under the US/NATO security umbrella, it's a different story. without the implicit US security guarantee to Taiwan, and the Baltic states entry into NATO, do you really think either China or Russia would hesitate to change things even if it violates "international law"?
The US was not going to war with Russia over a non-NATO member. However unless things change dramatically the US will defend Taiwan, South Korea and our Allies in the region. And The Baltics are NATO countries so we will defend them...unless the Feckless Cheeto orders EUCOM not to do so.
As for the borders in Africa and the Mideast...well those at largely artificial constructs as a result of the post colonial breakup. Iraq is a perfect example of that. I mean look at all the straight lines which totally ignore tribal lines.
Heck, the nice straight northern border for the US/Canada was almost fought over several times (54-40 Or Fight!) before it was negotiated to todays border.Last edited by rj1; 23 Jul 18,, 21:19.
Comment
-
rj1,
So in this world, borders are only sacrosanct for states that have a security guarantee with the U.S.?
but otherwise, yes, that is essentially the definition of a multipolar world. the irony is that behind the "MAKE AMERICA GREAT AGAIN" stuff, the national defense strategy fully acknowledges the return to Great Power competition. which includes power blocs, alliances, etc.
Can we setup a different thread and discuss war gaming the Baltics? I'm dead serious, because I question the will of certain countries presently allied with the Baltic states to defend them (not necessarily the Americans) even though the principle of collective defense would get cited. The scenario could potentially be a Rio Treaty-busting style moment for NATO and the EU.There is a cult of ignorance in the United States, and there has always been. The strain of anti-intellectualism has been a constant thread winding its way through our political and cultural life, nurtured by the false notion that democracy means that "My ignorance is just as good as your knowledge."- Isaac Asimov
Comment
-
firestorm,
Deter the Russians from doing what? They can't even beat Ukraine. What exactly does Western Europe have to fear from them? The real problem is increasing dependence on them for WE's energy needs which Trump alluded to in his usual crude, idiotic ham-fisted manner. No amount of "bulking up" is going to fix that.
A bulked up WE also couldn't have prevented Crimea. Or Russian troll farms spreading fake news.
but rj1 does point out that WE weakness leaves the Baltic states, which are part of NATO, hanging on a very thin thread indeed.
altho i do agree that WE energy dependency on Russia is indeed worrying.There is a cult of ignorance in the United States, and there has always been. The strain of anti-intellectualism has been a constant thread winding its way through our political and cultural life, nurtured by the false notion that democracy means that "My ignorance is just as good as your knowledge."- Isaac Asimov
Comment
-
Originally posted by Firestorm View PostYou missed the point completely. What DE is saying is that real American commitment to its allies has not reduced as evidenced by continuing presence of American troops in Germany and Korea. SO the world has not changed all that much. Nothing to do with "muscovite" moral equivalence. Whatever that is.
I reply to you to educate you (with little hope) about Muscovite moral equivalence - which surprisingly you have never noticed or heard of. When a reporter brings up the murder of reporters (Anna Politskaya for example) or opposition politicos to Putin (Nemtsov for example), the murder of Sasha Litvinenko, attempted murder of the Skripals etc etc etc all the way back to Ryazan and 'apartment bombings' to Trumpkin he says "Well America has killed people too". The difference is that in a free country ruled by law a President or PM cannot murder reporters or opposition politicians they don't like; in Muscovy it is the rule. Free peoples kill if necessary when attacked; dictators kill those they dislike.
Another one "well the west invaded Iraq". Yes and maybe it was right or maybe wrong but making an equivalence with Georgia or Ukraine is a non sequitur; neither Georgia nor Ukraine have ever used chemical weapons on their own people. Georgia never had a nuclear program and Ukraine gave up it's nuclear weapons for a piece of worthless paper.
Nor contrary to popular culture do free countries have James Bond's - licensed to kill. There is never a 'license to kill' except as has become very clear for Moscow. There is no moral equivalence between our actions and theirs.
Comment
-
Originally posted by astralis View Postbut rj1 does point out that WE weakness leaves the Baltic states, which are part of NATO, hanging on a very thin thread indeed.
But I don't agree that the Russians would seriously consider doing a Crimea in a NATO country. The USA, regardless of what your great orange leader says, cannot afford to let NATO become a joke. They will come to the Baltic states' defense and will drag WE (kicking and screaming if need be) along with them. The Russians know it very well and would never attempt it for that reason.
Comment
-
Originally posted by snapper View PostI did not know that you were DE's spokesperson and if indeed he did intend that I shall apologise for my misunderstanding of his comment to him.
I reply to you to educate you (with little hope) about Muscovite moral equivalence - which surprisingly you have never noticed or heard of. When a reporter brings up the murder of reporters (Anna Politskaya for example) or opposition politicos to Putin (Nemtsov for example), the murder of Sasha Litvinenko, attempted murder of the Skripals etc etc etc all the way back to Ryazan and 'apartment bombings' to Trumpkin he says "Well America has killed people too". The difference is that in a free country ruled by law a President or PM cannot murder reporters or opposition politicians they don't like; in Muscovy it is the rule. Free peoples kill if necessary when attacked; dictators kill those they dislike.
Another one "well the west invaded Iraq". Yes and maybe it was right or maybe wrong but making an equivalence with Georgia or Ukraine is a non sequitur; neither Georgia nor Ukraine have ever used chemical weapons on their own people. Georgia never had a nuclear program and Ukraine gave up it's nuclear weapons for a piece of worthless paper.
Nor contrary to popular culture do free countries have James Bond's - licensed to kill. There is never a 'license to kill' except as has become very clear for Moscow. There is no moral equivalence between our actions and theirs.
Comment
-
Originally posted by Albany Rifles View PostHeck, the nice straight northern border for the US/Canada was almost fought over several times (54-40 Or Fight!) before it was negotiated to todays border.
http://www.worldaffairsboard.com/sho...12338&page=603sigpic
Win nervously lose tragically - Reds C C
Comment
-
Firestorm,
Well if that is really the case, then it is Eastern Europe that needs bulking up, not WE, because the question is more of willingness than ability isn't it?
the going in plans for most of the Baltic states is the expectation that they will be overrun in short order but will have active insurgencies in place to assist the eventual liberation.
But I don't agree that the Russians would seriously consider doing a Crimea in a NATO country. The USA, regardless of what your great orange leader says, cannot afford to let NATO become a joke. They will come to the Baltic states' defense and will drag WE (kicking and screaming if need be) along with them. The Russians know it very well and would never attempt it for that reason.There is a cult of ignorance in the United States, and there has always been. The strain of anti-intellectualism has been a constant thread winding its way through our political and cultural life, nurtured by the false notion that democracy means that "My ignorance is just as good as your knowledge."- Isaac Asimov
Comment
-
Originally posted by astralis View Postrj1,
not quite; subject to the usual cost-benefit analysis, including the states' own military strength, importance, etc. IE I doubt Russia is going to try to annex Finland, or China will try to annex Mongolia.
but otherwise, yes, that is essentially the definition of a multipolar world. the irony is that behind the "MAKE AMERICA GREAT AGAIN" stuff, the national defense strategy fully acknowledges the return to Great Power competition. which includes power blocs, alliances, etc.Last edited by rj1; 24 Jul 18,, 13:54.
Comment
-
Can we setup a different thread and discuss war gaming the Baltics? I'm dead serious, because I question the will of certain countries presently allied with the Baltic states to defend them (not necessarily the Americans) even though the principle of collective defense would get cited. The scenario could potentially be a Rio Treaty-busting style moment for NATO and the EU.
Go ahead and start it.
Don't do it here...start in the International Defense & Geopolitics Discussion section under Europe & Russia,“Loyalty to country ALWAYS. Loyalty to government, when it deserves it.”
Mark Twain
Comment
-
Originally posted by Bigfella View PostHaven't heard that phrase for a while Buck. Last time I was singing it at the top of my lungs while Oregon's finest played along. Enjoy. :-)
http://www.worldaffairsboard.com/sho...12338&page=603“Loyalty to country ALWAYS. Loyalty to government, when it deserves it.”
Mark Twain
Comment
Comment