Karl Agathon
Golden Member
- Sep 30, 2010
- 1,081
- 0
- 0
if we suck so much, then the 34000 European troops in Afghanistan are not needed anymore I guess
William Gaatjes
Lifer
- May 11, 2008
- 22,598
- 1,473
- 126
There is no need for these simpleminded attacks towards each other.
We all carry painful history in the book of mankind.
Let us not forget that it is easier to blame someone then to find a solution together. However, it also does not present solutions. Humans have a natural tendency towards seeking and searching out an enemy. It is part of the social behavior that is programmed into us by evolution. A natural means of self preservation going haywire at times. That is why as a group we work better because the overall group mentality works as an integrator. Smoothing out sudden outburst of emotions. However, even with mathematical integration, there still needs to be a point of reference...
We all carry painful history in the book of mankind.
Let us not forget that it is easier to blame someone then to find a solution together. However, it also does not present solutions. Humans have a natural tendency towards seeking and searching out an enemy. It is part of the social behavior that is programmed into us by evolution. A natural means of self preservation going haywire at times. That is why as a group we work better because the overall group mentality works as an integrator. Smoothing out sudden outburst of emotions. However, even with mathematical integration, there still needs to be a point of reference...
What it boils down to is differing visions of what to accomplish given the end of the cold war.
Europeans see it as an opportunity to pare down their militaries, given that there is no credible military threat to their freedom & independence from the former Warsaw Pact, and none from any other quarter. They also appreciate the idea that militarism for its own sake tends to promote aggression, that sooner or later some damned fools will think that having a big gun means you need to use it.
In the US, a different POV has dominated thinking- that of the Neocons, who see the whole thing as an opportunity to exert greater hegemony over the rest of the world, and haven't been shy about it, either. Their thinking laps over into both sides of the lopsided US political spectrum. Page 3, here-
http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/003/000tzmlw.asp
Yes, the US has a very big gun, and under Neocon guidance, will find ways to use it, good & bad, depending. As Kristol points out, US interests in the world extend beyond our borders, but what he avoids entirely is that those interests are mainly those of the financial elite, who are in the process of a messy divorce with the american people, who are finding that the price/ reward ratio wrt militarism to be disappointing from the perspective of the average guy.
Gates is obviously of the Neocon persuasion, and all that entails- wanting our allies to bear greater costs wrt our own adventurism is really a bit disingenuous, because the real answer is to reduce our own expenditures, which would thwart the Neocon dream, which, of course, isn't what he or any of the rest of them want at all.
And there's the POV that our enormous military really is just a giant jobs program providing support & cover for the growing internationalism of our own financial elite. We protect their interests, and we get... what, exactly? greater debt & a shrinking share of the pie? apparently so.
Europeans see it as an opportunity to pare down their militaries, given that there is no credible military threat to their freedom & independence from the former Warsaw Pact, and none from any other quarter. They also appreciate the idea that militarism for its own sake tends to promote aggression, that sooner or later some damned fools will think that having a big gun means you need to use it.
In the US, a different POV has dominated thinking- that of the Neocons, who see the whole thing as an opportunity to exert greater hegemony over the rest of the world, and haven't been shy about it, either. Their thinking laps over into both sides of the lopsided US political spectrum. Page 3, here-
http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/003/000tzmlw.asp
Yes, the US has a very big gun, and under Neocon guidance, will find ways to use it, good & bad, depending. As Kristol points out, US interests in the world extend beyond our borders, but what he avoids entirely is that those interests are mainly those of the financial elite, who are in the process of a messy divorce with the american people, who are finding that the price/ reward ratio wrt militarism to be disappointing from the perspective of the average guy.
Gates is obviously of the Neocon persuasion, and all that entails- wanting our allies to bear greater costs wrt our own adventurism is really a bit disingenuous, because the real answer is to reduce our own expenditures, which would thwart the Neocon dream, which, of course, isn't what he or any of the rest of them want at all.
And there's the POV that our enormous military really is just a giant jobs program providing support & cover for the growing internationalism of our own financial elite. We protect their interests, and we get... what, exactly? greater debt & a shrinking share of the pie? apparently so.
Last edited:
Considering many are planning on leaving soon I guess not.
The point is, those troops are highly dependent on US support (logistics, intel, etc) to function and most are not in high intensity areas... in fact, the rules of engagement for some are extraordinarily stupid.
Gates has been grumbling about that from the beginning and then comes Libya, where every NATO country votes yes yet only half actually provide military support and less than a third are directly involved in the strikes (and they still can barely procure the fuel and munitions to operate). Oh, and the US -of course- is footing much of the bill.
Gates isn't just griping to complain, he's worried that the reluctance of some European nations to expand defense budgets and take on direct combat has created what amounts to a two-tier alliance: the U.S. military at one level and the rest of NATO on a lower, almost irrelevant plane.
Maybe in a past paradigm, but a nuclear deterrent matters little in this age of internal insurgencies and terrorism. Having a bunch of ICBMs won't help NATO function in places like Afghanistan and Libya... the types of conflicts that will dominate world affairs.
I shudder to think what the world will be like with a more militarized Europe. Humanity barely survived when the Europeans were the dominant military power.
the kind of conflicts we should not even be involved in the first place
it's simple, Mr Gates can say whatever he wants, there is not threat to Europe, someone should explain me what the US troops in Europe are defending. The US needs the bases in Europe as logistical hubs for operations in Afghanistan and Iraq. And like I said, when it comes to European territory, we are more then capable of defending ourselves. When it comes to military capabilities, you have the top dog the USA and then you have basically Europe. This is nothing more then pandering to the fox news viewers. I bet that the European top politicians in the audience were thinking "whatever" when Mr Gates gave his little speech. They know that the USA is not going to leave Europe anytime soon. Besides, there is another side to all of this, the general feeling is that Europe is paying afterwards for the stuff that the US is blowing up.
In 2010, official development assistance from the USA was 28 billion, Europe was spending more then 73 billion. Maybe some European politicians should go to Washington and start crying that the so called richest and most powerfull country in the world is not doing enough. When it comes to private donations, a 2008 study shows that from the top 10 of most charitable countries, 8 are European countries. So I would say that we have a good deal, you guys blow stuff up and we pay for reconstruction and humanitarian relief
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_most_charitable_countries
Last edited:
Those are the kinds of conflicts that European policies created in the first place.
You will find no refuge in trying to hide behind misleading numbers. How much of that supposed $73 billion in development assistance was given to non-European countries?
try to read, it's in the report in the wiki link
largest recipients
Sudan
Ethiopia
Pakistan
palestina
DRC
Indonesia
Afghanistan
anymore comments?
to help you some more
here is a link where the aid is going
http://www.oecd.org/countrylist/0,3349,en_2649_34447_1783495_1_1_1_1,00.html
I just picked some random European donors
eagerly waiting for a reply
http://www.oecd.org/dataoecd/42/20/44283993.gif
http://www.oecd.org/dataoecd/61/24/44284290.gif
http://www.oecd.org/dataoecd/42/0/44284467.gif
http://www.oecd.org/dataoecd/42/1/44284478.gif
Yes, I have lots of comments. How much wealth was extracted from those countries during colonialism? Is what is being returned counted as development assistance?
It seems to me that many of those countries gave development assistance to Europe instead.
that was not your first argument Canoshit, you were implying that this aid was not going to those countries, I proved you wrong as always
no go back to your basement, nobody cares about the diarrhea you spout all the time
that was not your first argument Canoshit, you were implying that this aid was not going to those countries, I proved you wrong as always
I have many arguments. Moreover, you did not prove my first argument to be incorrect. You did show that some aid goes to countries that were horrifically destroyed by European actions and policies. However, that was not my argument. My argument was that much of the aid goes to other European countries.
no go back to your basement, nobody cares about the diarrhea you spout all the time
It seems like you're scared of my second argument. Likely because it's true. Europe was developed by the destruction of the world through colonialism. Sending a trickle back is not really development aid, but returning the funds to the rightful owner.
yes I do and his point doesn't make sense. Do you think France and Germany will go to war again because the USA closes its bases in Europe? I just responded also without something that doesn't make sense. Whenever these threads get up, some of you bring WW1 and WW2 into the discussion. It's like Godwin's law.
Back to the point
What Mr Gates was really asking, send more troops to help with the giant pile of crap we created in Afghanistan and Iraq. We are an empire on the decline, overextended financially and military so we need your help. Big European countries like Germany and France were probably thinking "told you so in 2003 not to start the Iraq pile crap". For the last 10 years, European allies have been scoffed at by the US administrations. Do you really think that the European public opinion and politicians give a f*cking crap that you guys are bogged down in Iraq in a never ending conflict wasting billions. Micronesia, Palau and the Solomon Island were part of the coalition of the willing, maybe Gates can go there and beg for military boots, oh I forgot, these countries don't have a standing army. You guys didn't need the old Europe anymore so why should we care?
Last edited:
Hayabusa Rider
Admin Emeritus & Elite Member
- Jan 26, 2000
- 50,879
- 4,268
- 126
The US needs a couple bases to move military assets around. Other nations have depended on us to provide for their defense on our dime. It's long past time that Europe manned up and took care of itself. If it costs them a fortune that's their problem. We keep hearing about how we spend money on the military and not on health care. Well, let's spend that money on improving our system and every else take care of their defense needs. The real problem with Gates is that he told it just how it is, and that's not politically correct.
We need to get out of Iran and Afghanistan immediately and concentrate on rapid deployment with emphasis on hypersonic, space based and remote battle capability such as drones. Everyone else can either pay us for their defense and I mean at a profit or divert spending from their programs find out just what security costs to implement.
Broheim
Diamond Member
- Feb 17, 2011
- 4,587
- 3
- 81
how are we not taking care of ourselves? are you still "defending" us from an enemy that died 20 years ago?
Please show me that Europe can not defend its territory. We don't have the capabilities to fight big wars 10000 km from home but please show me where Europe is not capable of defending itself. We have a toothless tiger to the east (Russia) that poses no threat and died 20 years ago as a credible threat. I have no problem that the USA packs up and leave, I thank your for your contribution for all these years but I will not feel less safe if the US decides to leave. Ofcourse leaving will mean huge logistical problems for projecting US power worldwide but I guess that's a US problem then. Gates seems to think it's still the cold war. As long as we have 500+ European ICMB nukes, territorial integrity is almost guaranteed. Leaked out documents showed that France had plans to nuke the USSR with everything they got if they decided to invade and they were even not part of the NATO back then!! The situation is totally different now compared with WW1 or WW2. Any power that decides to invade Europe will face destruction, its as simple as that. I would say that we are more then capable of defending ourselves, despite what Gates is saying. Like I said, what Gates really want is more European boots for Iraq and Aghanistan but I have a little secret for him, it aint gonna happen!!
I live hear, we don't run around on the streets thinking that an "invasion" is imminent, with or without US troops in Europe
Last edited:
Hayabusa Rider
Admin Emeritus & Elite Member
- Jan 26, 2000
- 50,879
- 4,268
- 126
Well we're in agreement then because I want us out of Afghanistan and Iraq and us out of Europe.
exactly, this speech from Gates doesn't make sense at all and I'm sure that his European audience were thinking, wtf is this guy talking about.
It just shows the build up frustration of a country thats overextended military and financially
but it's all good, I'm leaving on holidays for the USA next week
going to buy me some goodies with 40% discount because of the euro/dollar conversion
you guys can thank me later for my contribution to the US economy
TRENDING THREADS
-
Discussion Zen 5 Speculation (EPYC Turin and Strix Point/Granite Ridge - Ryzen 9000)- Started by DisEnchantment
- Replies: 25K
-
Discussion Intel Meteor, Arrow, Lunar & Panther Lakes + WCL Discussion Threads
- Started by Tigerick
- Replies: 23K
-
Discussion Intel current and future Lakes & Rapids thread- Started by TheF34RChannel
- Replies: 23K
-
-
Facebook
Twitter