Europe, Boring Until it's Not

[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.

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.

That's rich. You are the one arguing against a straw man. What does your alleged support for the war have to do with the fact that the cost/benefit ratio for American commitments to Denmark via NATO are fucking abysmal?

Your Facebook support isn't going to win that war. In fact, we didn't fucking win it. It's a stalemate. Maybe we could have used more troops? I dunno. I do know what we outlay in national treasure and potential casualties for the defense of Denmark is hardly worth what we get in return.

[Fife]

Newsflash: Nobody is going to be attacking USA property. NOBODY.

NATO is as useful as hind tits on a boar hog for any American state outside of the federal city.

NATO is a cash-crop plantation for the federal city.

Sorry Denmark, but literally nobody GAF about Danish military support, except to the extent that it fortifies the federal city.

[BjornP]

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.

It's not my place to tell you what you need or what (level of gain) you'd find sufficient. Just do a little research before saying things like Poland wasn't in NATO or that Denmark didn't sacrifice for you when you called. If you rather want NATO to dissolve/hand it over to non-US members, that is and should be your sovereign decision. Just do it on an informed basis.

As for what you'd gain for fighting to defend NATO allies who'd get attacked by Russia? The same as you gained when you defended, and made allies of, countries attacked and occupied by Nazi Germany, I suspect. I don't like the Americanization of European cultures, but you also did not force it on us. American products weren't forced into European markets. People wanted to buy American - partly because even before WW1, you had a reputation for being the homeland of everything modern and innovative, but after WW2, there was a great deal of... prestige attached to anything produced in the US.

In that sense, you are like the French. They too won wars, gained lots of prestige to go with their power and their ways, language, beliefs and culture became emulated in the rest of Europe. But today, Russians don't want to emulate the French, nor do Danes, for that matter.

I think the cultural Americanization bit is good for us, and it should be easy enough to get used to US products no longer being considered prestigious by association. And if you look at modern Britain, and modern France... neither of them are huge empires anymore. Yet is the average Brit and the average Frenchman in the time of empire, better off than the average Brit and the average Frenchman today? In terms of quality of life, prosperity? You will absolutely lose your hegemony status if NATO dissolves, but who's to say if that doesn't improve the quality of life for the average American? I can't with a certainty say it won't.

[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.

It's not my place to tell you what you need or what (level of gain) you'd find sufficient. Just do a little research before saying things like Poland wasn't in NATO or that Denmark didn't sacrifice for you when you called. If you rather want NATO to dissolve/hand it over to non-US members, that is and should be your sovereign decision. Just do it on an informed basis.

As for what you'd gain for fighting to defend NATO allies who'd get attacked by Russia? The same as you gained when you defended, and made allies of, countries attacked and occupied by Nazi Germany, I suspect. I don't like the Americanization of European cultures, but you also did not force it on us. American products weren't forced into European markets. People wanted to buy American - partly because even before WW1, you had a reputation for being the homeland of everything modern and innovative, but after WW2, there was a great deal of... prestige attached to anything produced in the US.

In that sense, you are like the French. They too won wars, gained lots of prestige to go with their power and their ways, language, beliefs and culture became emulated in the rest of Europe. But today, Russians don't want to emulate the French, nor do Danes, for that matter.

I think the cultural Americanization bit is good for us, and it should be easy enough to get used to US products no longer being considered prestigious by association. And if you look at modern Britain, and modern France... neither of them are huge empires anymore. Yet is the average Brit and the average Frenchman in the time of empire, better off than the average Brit and the average Frenchman today? In terms of quality of life, prosperity? You will absolutely lose your hegemony status if NATO dissolves, but who's to say if that doesn't improve the quality of life for the average American? I can't with a certainty say it won't.

We got literally nothing but shit upon for saving you from the Germans (twice). First time was a huge mistake. Europe would have been better off had the Germans taken over France and whatever else. Second time.. dude, you really want to go there?? The Germans invaded Denmark and you guys fought for a whole six hours before surrendering and becoming a Nazi protectorate.

We don't actually get much of anything in return for what we spend on Europe in terms of national treasure and blood. You know you cannot argue otherwise. To call this relationship one-sided would be an insult to everything with only one side. It's a parasitic relationship in which most of you contribute the very least you can possibly get away with, most of the time less than your contractual commitments, and then bankroll your welfare states on the savings because you don't really have to spend much on your own defense (Let the Americans do it!).

Then when Americans get attacked, as happened in 2001, you bitch about losing troops in our war; but when we discuss American commitments to a hypothetical attack on Denmark, you declare that is our war too.

You are the one getting butthurt that I dared to suggest this NATO relationship is a fucking farce that benefits the American people so little that the benefits are not even worth suggesting in relation to the costs we pay. You are the ones who benefit from this in so many ways. Surely you could come up with some argument in defense of this. How is this worthwhile to the American people?

[SuburbanFarmer]

Well, we did get 40 years of global industrial and financial dominance, for bombing the fuck out of Europe... so there’s that.

[BjornP]

You only saved us from the Germans once.

When did I "bitch" about losing soldiers in Afghanistan, Iraq, etc.? It's your, the personal you, the man behind StA, whose lack of respect and dishonesty I argue against. Not America or Americans. I fully understand what alliances mean. You don't seem to. It means honoring those alliances.

No European government today is forcing you to pay 3.1% of GDP, so how about you butt out of what we spend and how we spend it? It's quite simply none of your business. If Russia attacks, and if you decide you'd rather be known as a trustworthy ally, you can always choose to send as little a percentage of your military forces as my country did.

[Montegriffo]

Well, we did get 40 years of global industrial and financial dominance, for bombing the fuck out of Europe... so there’s that.

Not to mention the huge profits from selling us all arms. Britain didn't finish paying its lend lease debts to the US until the last few years of Thatcher's rule. Over 40 years of re-payments.

[Speaker to Animals]

Well, we did get 40 years of global industrial and financial dominance, for bombing the fuck out of Europe... so there’s that.

Yet we didn't need NATO for that.

I struggle to understand why we need NATO now. There is no Soviet Union. News flash.

From the 1950s to the 1990s.. NATO had a purpose at least. What the fuck is NATO now but rent-seeking on the part of Euros who don't want to pay for their own defense?

If most of the costs are paid by US, UK, and Germany; and most of the military commitments are made by the US and the UK, then we should just limit the alliance to those nations.

[Speaker to Animals]

A few years back, some Lithuanian was telling me on DCF that we have to be ready to go to all-out war against Russia if they invade Lithuania.

I was like, what the fuck is Lithuania?? When I was a kid there was just the Soviet Union and it appears Lithuania was just part of the overall shittiness that was Russia. Now I have to go to nuclear war if the Russians attack it? LOL, no. Get real.

[BjornP]

A few years back, some Lithuanian was telling me on DCF that we have to be ready to go to all-out war against Russia if they invade Lithuania.

I was like, what the fuck is Lithuania?? When I was a kid there was just the Soviet Union and it appears Lithuania was just part of the overall shittiness that was Russia. Now I have to go to nuclear war if the Russians attack it? LOL, no. Get real.

So, no NATO countries should have come to your defense when you invoked article 5, either?