Europe, Boring Until it's Not

[Speaker to Animals]

Not that I want to disparage the honor of the 20k (total) troops you deployed (probably far less because of repeat deployments). I am taking aim at your government here who deployed at any given time (at most) about 750 troops.

[BjornP]

Good idea, Bjorn..






Hmmm.. It might be more practical to offer 750 Danes asylum in America if the Russians invaded. Not that it is very likely anybody would want to invade you except for all those jihadis, but you guys want them there, so what the fuck is America paying for here??

If Denmark were attacked instead on 9-11, it would still be this massive war waged by, and mostly paid for by, Americans. You sent 750 troops..

I dunno. Maybe we just did not negotiate with your military union reps very well. Hard to say what happened there.

Lol at 750. As per December 31st. 2017, the total number of personnel commited to Afghanistan by the Danish armed forces since the conflict began: 19,582. *
* ( http://forpers.dk/hr/Pages/Afghanistan.aspx : In Danish, but they're the official numbers.)

LOL at you adding up deployments cumulatively as if you committed 20k troops at once.

The thief thinks all men steal. You were the one either being dishonest, or ignorant of the total number, so I provided the total number.

[BjornP]

Not that I want to disparage the honor of the 20k (total) troops you deployed (probably far less because of repeat deployments). I am taking aim at your government here who deployed at any given time (at most) about 750 troops.

You do realize that, just like the US, the military of Denmark and any of the other participant forces in Afghanistan also had other deployments (NATO or various peacekeeping missions) elsewhere in the world? There's also the fact that the total population of Denmark is 5.5 million. Population of France: 67.7 million. That tends to factor into how many troops a country can send.

At the end of the day, though, the only NATO member who made use of article 5, StA... is you. Europeans have fought, died and gotten maimed in your wars for decades now, with the Afghanistan war being the only time we all came together in common defense - even though, technically, Afghanistan did not launch an attack on you (they "just" provided safe harbor for a terrorist organization that did). And try not to forget that you didn't take on Saddam on your own during Iraq 1 and 2, nor Assad in Syria, or Gaddafi in Libya.

[Speaker to Animals]

Lol at 750. As per December 31st. 2017, the total number of personnel commited to Afghanistan by the Danish armed forces since the conflict began: 19,582. *
* ( http://forpers.dk/hr/Pages/Afghanistan.aspx : In Danish, but they're the official numbers.)

LOL at you adding up deployments cumulatively as if you committed 20k troops at once.

The thief thinks all men steal. You were the one either being dishonest, or ignorant of the total number, so I provided the total number.

Dude, what was the maximum number of troops your government deployed to Afghanistan at a single time? It was about 750.

Adding up all the deployments cumulatively is fucking retarded. America sent millions of troops of Afghanistan if you want to play that game. So did the UK and France. You don't come out ahead redefining things because it applies to everybody else as well.

[Hastur]

LOL at you adding up deployments cumulatively as if you committed 20k troops at once.

The thief thinks all men steal. You were the one either being dishonest, or ignorant of the total number, so I provided the total number.

Dude, what was the maximum number of troops your government deployed to Afghanistan at a single time? It was about 750.

Adding up all the deployments cumulatively is fucking retarded. America sent millions of troops of Afghanistan if you want to play that game. So did the UK and France. You don't come out ahead redefining things because it applies to everybody else as well.

He just pointed out you needed to offer more than 750 Danes Asylum if you wanted to take in those who had fought in Afganistan. And yes, they did fight. Took more casualties in proportion to their size than any other participating nation.

[Speaker to Animals]

Not that I want to disparage the honor of the 20k (total) troops you deployed (probably far less because of repeat deployments). I am taking aim at your government here who deployed at any given time (at most) about 750 troops.

You do realize that, just like the US, the military of Denmark and any of the other participant forces in Afghanistan also had other deployments (NATO or various peacekeeping missions) elsewhere in the world? There's also the fact that the total population of Denmark is 5.5 million. Population of France: 67.7 million. That tends to factor into how many troops a country can send.

At the end of the day, though, the only NATO member who made use of article 5, StA... is you. Europeans have fought, died and gotten maimed in your wars for decades now, with the Afghanistan war being the only time we all came together in common defense - even though, technically, Afghanistan did not launch an attack on you (they "just" provided safe harbor for a terrorist organization that did). And try not to forget that you didn't take on Saddam on your own during Iraq 1 and 2, nor Assad in Syria, or Gaddafi in Libya.

There it is.


The contempt for Americans that Europeans have. They take and take and take from Americans, but they hold nothing but contempt for the people carrying their water.

The fact remains, Americans pay a quarter of the costs of NATO. The rest is picked up mostly by Germany (financially, anyway), and the UK. NATO membership requires that a nation spends at least 2% of their GDP on national defense. Almost none of you do that. You don't even pay 2% of your God damned GDP on defense because you expect Americans to spend our treasure on your defense, and spill American blood in your defense.

I have nothing by respect for the honor of the Danish troops who deployed to Afghanistan at most 750 men per deployment. But 750 troops does not affect our war fighting one bit. It's a token contribution by your government. The sacrifices those men made were real and deserve every bit of gratitude from Americans and they certainly get it from me. But as for NATO, this is a racket and you God damned well know it.

What I find particularly galling is how you people constantly talk shit about America and how your welfare states are so much better, but none of that would be possible if we were not paying for your national defense. You cannot defend yourself by spending 1% of your GDP on defense. For fuck sake. This is rent seeking at its worst.

[Speaker to Animals]

Seriously think about this dynamic. If America gets attacked, Denmark feels committed to deploy 750 troops at a time in our mutual defense. If Denmark is attacked, Denmark would expect Americans to deploy troops on the order of an Iraq or Afghanistan War in their defense. Meanwhile, for those 750 troops, they will bitch about their troops dying in our wars.

In defense of America, Danish say it's our war. Then in the next breath, at least one Dane informs us that, if Denmark is attacked, that's our war too.

[BjornP]

Your talk of "contempt" is entirely imaginary. You're simply engaging in the sad, ongoing trend of portraying yourself as part of some "victimized" group to score debate points. It's a tactic you've engaged in before and I am sure everyone recognizes by now, so stop it and argue the issue honestly.

So, yes, your military spending is greater. How much of that greater military spending goes to defend NATO countries, though? The money you spend on military bases in South East Asia, in Latin America, Middle East... all of that contributes to you having a much, much greater military spending by GDP than anyone else. Is it also NATO's business if France wants to attack, say, the Ivory Coast or some other former colony? Nope. Because NATO is defensive alliance. But if France sends its troops to the Ivory Coast, that's still military spending... BUT NOT neccesarily something to be considered a NATO contribution.

[Speaker to Animals]

Explain to me how this is worth what we sink into it, please, when we could just form an alliance with UK, France, and maybe Germany who all either contribute their dues, maintain sufficient defense spending, or commit meaningful amounts of troops during wartime.

What could we possibly gain from being in a NATO agreement with Denmark as if Denmark is our peer in any way?

For 750 troops and barely 2% of your GDP spent on defense, and probably not even paying all your dues, we have to commit to total war with Russia if they fuck with you. Where does that deal make any sense for the American people? Can you try to explain that? Sell it to us.

[BjornP]

Seriously think about this dynamic. If America gets attacked, Denmark feels committed to deploy 750 troops at a time in our mutual defense. If Denmark is attacked, Denmark would expect Americans to deploy troops on the order of an Iraq or Afghanistan War in their defense. Meanwhile, for those 750 troops, they will bitch about their troops dying in our wars.

In defense of America, Danish say it's our war. Then in the next breath, at least one Dane informs us that, if Denmark is attacked, that's our war too.

Stop arguing against a strawman. The thing you're saying the Danish are supposedly saying, they're not saying. Majority of Danes supported the war in Afghanistan:

https://www.atlanticcouncil.org/blogs/n ... afghan-war

And it depends on who attack you. Afghanistan had no ability to launch an invasion of the US and if they did, the Danish contribution would have been different. If it was China who attacked you, the response would have looked different. China is more likely to land actual troops on US soil. Afghanistan is not.