heydaralon wrote:Well the Poles left a lot of that piled up at the train stations too. I think they got the teeth fillings later..Okeefenokee wrote:My brain read luggage.TheReal_ND wrote:language and culture.
Once again, we are going to look at History. NATO was founded for two reasons. The first was for the Cold war reasons that everybody knows. The second was to keep Germany from stirring up shit in Europe again. USSR and US were secretly glad that berlin was divided right down the middle because neither of them wanted to deal it regrouping. Nor did France, even if they were pissed that Anglos started talks behind their backs. France was super happy to be apart of NATO and so were the Italians, Belgians and Dutch. You are acting like NATO is just this masturbatory exercise for the US to feel important in Europe. It has certainly become that, but initially, the US was reluctant to fully sign on to the article V stuff, and the Organization was enthusiastically supported by much of Western Europe.Smitty-48 wrote:Why would they spend more on their defense budgets? The vast majority of defense spending is wasteful, meanwhile, security and combat power are not actually related to how much you spend, the Saudis spend more than anybody, number one defense spender per capita, and yet they couldn't fight their way out of a wet paper bag.heydaralon wrote:I never said they are forcing us to do shit. You are right, we have some bozos like McCain who cry bloody murder when anyone even talks about reducing NATO, but come on. You are acting like Europe has not benefited immensely from NATO. They don't spend much on their defense budgets, and even if NATO is a figleaf, maybe its dissolution would force them to re-evaluate their policy and decide if they want to have more security or continue to expand their domestic government programs.
2% GDP spending is an arbitrary and in the end meaningless metric, and it wouldn't make anybody spend less on domestic programs, and most defense spending is a domestic program anyways, so get real.
They're spending six times what the Russians spend, but because American hayseed goobers are stupid enough to vastly overspend beyond even that, everybody else is a "freeloader". American idiot crybabies; wanh-wanh-wanh, rest o' the world; yeah, whatevs. /shrugsheydaralon wrote:Once again, we are going to look at History. NATO was founded for two reasons. The first was for the Cold war reasons that everybody knows. The second was to keep Germany from stirring up shit in Europe again. USSR and US were secretly glad that berlin was divided right down the middle because neither of them wanted to deal it regrouping. Nor did France, even if they were pissed that Anglos started talks behind their backs. France was super happy to be apart of NATO and so were the Italians, Belgians and Dutch. You are acting like NATO is just this masturbatory exercise for the US to feel important in Europe. It has certainly become that, but initially, the US was reluctant to fully sign on to the article V stuff, and the Organization was enthusiastically supported by much of Western Europe.Smitty-48 wrote:Why would they spend more on their defense budgets? The vast majority of defense spending is wasteful, meanwhile, security and combat power are not actually related to how much you spend, the Saudis spend more than anybody, number one defense spender per capita, and yet they couldn't fight their way out of a wet paper bag.heydaralon wrote:I never said they are forcing us to do shit. You are right, we have some bozos like McCain who cry bloody murder when anyone even talks about reducing NATO, but come on. You are acting like Europe has not benefited immensely from NATO. They don't spend much on their defense budgets, and even if NATO is a figleaf, maybe its dissolution would force them to re-evaluate their policy and decide if they want to have more security or continue to expand their domestic government programs.
2% GDP spending is an arbitrary and in the end meaningless metric, and it wouldn't make anybody spend less on domestic programs, and most defense spending is a domestic program anyways, so get real.
I don't really care what Europe spends on their defense budgets be it 2% or 50%. In fact, I am quite drunk, and I forgot exactly what I was getting at. My only point is that we both seem to think that NATO is shit, but for different reasons. I think its shit because it could drag us into unnecessary wars and is full of freeloaders, your point seems to be that NATO is shit because Russia's strategy wouldn't involve Europe, and that no one in Europe is asking the United States to spend what it does. My retort is that historically NATO did have plenty of support from across Atlantic, and it seems very self serving of them to act like they haven't gotten at least some security from it over the years.
Also, why do you think the Saudi Army is shit? I have a hunch they are too, simply because Arab armies have not done well against Jews or Westerners in the 20th century, but what specific proof do you have that they suck? Aside from the Houthi shitshow, the only Saudi conflict I know of is the one in Yemen between the Marxists backed by Nasser, and the Monarchists backed by the House of Sa'ud in the 60's. They haven't really been tested lately. Do you think they'd win a war against Iran?
Post of the year?Smitty-48 wrote:They're spending six times what the Russians spend, but because American hayseed goobers are stupid enough to vastly overspend beyond even that, everybody else is a "freeloader". American idiot crybabies; wanh-wanh-wanh, rest o' the world; yeah, whatevs. /shrugsheydaralon wrote:Once again, we are going to look at History. NATO was founded for two reasons. The first was for the Cold war reasons that everybody knows. The second was to keep Germany from stirring up shit in Europe again. USSR and US were secretly glad that berlin was divided right down the middle because neither of them wanted to deal it regrouping. Nor did France, even if they were pissed that Anglos started talks behind their backs. France was super happy to be apart of NATO and so were the Italians, Belgians and Dutch. You are acting like NATO is just this masturbatory exercise for the US to feel important in Europe. It has certainly become that, but initially, the US was reluctant to fully sign on to the article V stuff, and the Organization was enthusiastically supported by much of Western Europe.Smitty-48 wrote:
Why would they spend more on their defense budgets? The vast majority of defense spending is wasteful, meanwhile, security and combat power are not actually related to how much you spend, the Saudis spend more than anybody, number one defense spender per capita, and yet they couldn't fight their way out of a wet paper bag.
2% GDP spending is an arbitrary and in the end meaningless metric, and it wouldn't make anybody spend less on domestic programs, and most defense spending is a domestic program anyways, so get real.
I don't really care what Europe spends on their defense budgets be it 2% or 50%. In fact, I am quite drunk, and I forgot exactly what I was getting at. My only point is that we both seem to think that NATO is shit, but for different reasons. I think its shit because it could drag us into unnecessary wars and is full of freeloaders, your point seems to be that NATO is shit because Russia's strategy wouldn't involve Europe, and that no one in Europe is asking the United States to spend what it does. My retort is that historically NATO did have plenty of support from across Atlantic, and it seems very self serving of them to act like they haven't gotten at least some security from it over the years.
Also, why do you think the Saudi Army is shit? I have a hunch they are too, simply because Arab armies have not done well against Jews or Westerners in the 20th century, but what specific proof do you have that they suck? Aside from the Houthi shitshow, the only Saudi conflict I know of is the one in Yemen between the Marxists backed by Nasser, and the Monarchists backed by the House of Sa'ud in the 60's. They haven't really been tested lately. Do you think they'd win a war against Iran?
What more proof do you need than the Houthi Sideshow? They're the most heavily armed best equipped military in the region, and they are getting severely whupped by a bunch of goat herders with AK-47's, and that's not assymetrical, this is in a stand up fight, the Saudi's bumble around, they clearly have no clue what they are doing, tactically or operationally, then the Houthis show up and attack them, and the Saudis either abandon their equipment and run away, or just get overrun by tactically inferior forces, both in terms of firepower and numbers, like deer in the headlights.
Saudis in an Abrams tank, a Houthi shows with a hand grenade, five minutes later, the Houthis have the tank, and two Saudis are dead and the other two are running off into the desert in their underwear, to call it a clown show would be an insult to clowns.
America spends $689 billion, NATO countries spend $250 billion, on an average year, Russia spends $50 billion, and the Russians just cut their defence spending this year by 10%, so give it a rest, John McCain, all your talking points are fake news.heydaralon wrote:Well, I just looked up the numbers and taking out the US, NATO spends 3 times as much as Russia.
Without Nukes, how do you think a Euro army would fare against a Russian one?Smitty-48 wrote:America spends $689 billion, NATO countries spend $250 billion, on an average year, Russia spends $50 billion, and the Russians just cut their defence spending this year by 10%,heydaralon wrote:Well, I just looked up the numbers and taking out the US, NATO spends 3 times as much as Russia.
Just Poland alone, would hand the Russians their asses, it would be ugly, the Russian conscripts would be running off into the woods, like Saudis running from the Houthis.heydaralon wrote:Without Nukes, how do you think a Euro army would fare against a Russian one?
Stalin would be disappointed. I would still place my money on the Russians. I don't think Poland is winning that fight.Smitty-48 wrote:Just Poland alone, would hand the Russians their asses, it would be ugly, the Russian conscripts would be running off into the woods, like Saudis running from the Houthis.heydaralon wrote:Without Nukes, how do you think a Euro army would fare against a Russian one?
The Russian conscripts don't want to fight, they hate being in the army, if you attack Russia, OK, then they'll fight you, but if Russia sends them into Europe to fight, first thing they would do would be surrender and ask for asylum.
Absolution Style by Premium phpBB Styles
