Home› Main Category› Second Amendment/Politics
centermass556
Posts: 3,618 Senior Member
Needs Americans To Operate (NATO)
centermass556
Posts: 3,618 Senior Member
So while we are at it, lets talk about another venture that is draining American coffers with absolutely zero return on investment. While it may have been a grand Idea after the end of the war, and supposedly kept the Commies from coming through Fulda Gap, it is outdated and worthless.
Having been apart of NATO operations and served in a NATO unit for three years, I can tell you first hand the only teeth the tiger has comes from the US and Britain. Even during the Balkan crisis, and after the UN screwed the pooch, NATO couldn't handle the break up of Yugoslavia without heavy US aid.
So what use is NATO now? Why does it still exist? It exists as an extension of the EU. NATO took over the mission in afghanistan. I still don't know how that happened. Shortly after taking over, they changed the rules for contracting services and procurement. In order to bid for a contract in afghanistan, for anything, you must be a coalition member. So, the EU now makes sure it has a coalition partner in country for whatever it wants to market to the war. Food stuff, ammo, contract services, you name it. Korea tried to get hip to this, but was continuously failed to get bids. They weren't part of the cool club.
And it goes deeper. The EU and NATO are playing "partner nations" of Eastern Europe against the middle. NATO promises faster acceptance into the org if the country sends troops. and, the EU promises faster acceptance for being part of NATO. If you know about the history of the EU and ESCC, then you know how scary or promising this can be to the fragile economies of smaller countries.
Meanwhile, we have Polish, Czechs, Georgians, and everyone else pulling some sort of duty in afghanistan, and the US is sending troops to those countries as a show of force towards the Russians. A show of force that is only required because the EU and NATO have slowly marched their way to Russia's doorstep and diminished the Soviet economic sphere of influence. If you start peeling back the onion to about 10 years ago, you can see this 21st century round of Russian angst did not begin until this new Western European Empire began to move east at a rapid pace. History has shown that western european empires are not Soviet friendly.
So who is at the head of all this. Well it is the same people that are pulling the string in the EU. Germany. Germany learned from its failures in post WWI, subsequent failure of WWII, and did not attempt to control Europe through military might. Instead, Germany romanced France and the Netherlands and created the European Steel and Coal Community. History gives credit to the French for this concept as a way to prevent another war with Germany, however in 1951 the Allied occupation made that a null argument. Since the creation of the ESCC and its evolution into the EU, Germany has conquered Europe through economic means and has forced the French to rely completely on the Germans. The two pillars of the EU are France and Germany, with Germany having the upper hand. France knows that nothing can happen without German say so. If France pulls away, they will tank. I believe the Brits saw this during the P.I.G.S. crisis and knew it was time to punch out, or there would get trapped like France.
And, through it all, America continues to foot a heavy portion of the bill for NATO and then unwittingly supplies the EU with more power.
So where is the threat for us to remain heavily invested in NATO. It seems to me, the threat is in staying.
Having been apart of NATO operations and served in a NATO unit for three years, I can tell you first hand the only teeth the tiger has comes from the US and Britain. Even during the Balkan crisis, and after the UN screwed the pooch, NATO couldn't handle the break up of Yugoslavia without heavy US aid.
So what use is NATO now? Why does it still exist? It exists as an extension of the EU. NATO took over the mission in afghanistan. I still don't know how that happened. Shortly after taking over, they changed the rules for contracting services and procurement. In order to bid for a contract in afghanistan, for anything, you must be a coalition member. So, the EU now makes sure it has a coalition partner in country for whatever it wants to market to the war. Food stuff, ammo, contract services, you name it. Korea tried to get hip to this, but was continuously failed to get bids. They weren't part of the cool club.
And it goes deeper. The EU and NATO are playing "partner nations" of Eastern Europe against the middle. NATO promises faster acceptance into the org if the country sends troops. and, the EU promises faster acceptance for being part of NATO. If you know about the history of the EU and ESCC, then you know how scary or promising this can be to the fragile economies of smaller countries.
Meanwhile, we have Polish, Czechs, Georgians, and everyone else pulling some sort of duty in afghanistan, and the US is sending troops to those countries as a show of force towards the Russians. A show of force that is only required because the EU and NATO have slowly marched their way to Russia's doorstep and diminished the Soviet economic sphere of influence. If you start peeling back the onion to about 10 years ago, you can see this 21st century round of Russian angst did not begin until this new Western European Empire began to move east at a rapid pace. History has shown that western european empires are not Soviet friendly.
So who is at the head of all this. Well it is the same people that are pulling the string in the EU. Germany. Germany learned from its failures in post WWI, subsequent failure of WWII, and did not attempt to control Europe through military might. Instead, Germany romanced France and the Netherlands and created the European Steel and Coal Community. History gives credit to the French for this concept as a way to prevent another war with Germany, however in 1951 the Allied occupation made that a null argument. Since the creation of the ESCC and its evolution into the EU, Germany has conquered Europe through economic means and has forced the French to rely completely on the Germans. The two pillars of the EU are France and Germany, with Germany having the upper hand. France knows that nothing can happen without German say so. If France pulls away, they will tank. I believe the Brits saw this during the P.I.G.S. crisis and knew it was time to punch out, or there would get trapped like France.
And, through it all, America continues to foot a heavy portion of the bill for NATO and then unwittingly supplies the EU with more power.
So where is the threat for us to remain heavily invested in NATO. It seems to me, the threat is in staying.
"To have really lived, you must have almost died. To those who have fought for it, freedom has a flavor the protected will never know."
Replies
Jerry
What were the highlights? Am I off base on my Russian assessment?
― Douglas Adams
Wean 'em hell, CHOP 'em!!! Anytime we are footing over 50% of any bill, we are getting hosed by everybody. Chop the head off that goose right now!!! Put that money into our own defense or into some offensive weapons that we can use ourselves if Russia or anybody would make an offensive move into Europe. We don't get crap out of having all these other small time nations in a coalition.
If they want to help just send man power here for training and service with our troops with no path to citizenship. And their government can foot that bill, pay their salaries. They sort of did this in WWII with soldiers from Poland, France, and other countries that were occupied by the axis but had gotten out to England or the U.S. before the Nazis shut the door. If they don't want to play our game tuff Poo!
Son that's somebody with nothing to do with his time but keep me in trouble with mom.
- George Orwell
Isolationism isn't good either. We don't need to do any nation building but sometimes it's within our interest to keep the world's bullies straight. Yeah, I know, we're not the world's police, but sometimes we need to be or we'll turn around one day surrounded by the bad guys.
Son that's somebody with nothing to do with his time but keep me in trouble with mom.
Winston Churchill
We do trade intel at the strategic and operational level. However, We are getting back nearly what we provide or pay for being NATO.
Now I am not in favor of Isolationism. However, We need to redefine some relationships and how much investment should be continued. Right now, I our investment in NATO is preventing us from having an investment in more profitable parts of the world, and our "adversaries" are capitalizing on this shortfall. China is succeeding in Africa where we are failing.
The thing is though, we have to understand that not all world problems can't be solved by Western Solutions, or more specifically US solutions. The US evolved completely different from the rest of the world. WE took the blueprint for the Social Contract (hobbes, Locke, Rousseau, etc,) that was written by europeans, and made it come true. The French tried the same thing and failed. So, can an issue in Europe be solved by the US..maybe, maybe not. A European problem would become a world issue, however it needs to have a European solution with an applicable level of US support. The US does not need to be the lead in any part of it.
Our continued containment doctrine is a perceived threat to the rest of the world. We may not practice it in the same fashion that we did in the 60s and 70s, however we are doing it in a very economical fashion. As we ignore certain markets in an effort to maintain and expand a sphere of economic influence in Europe and Asia, we look threatening and are losing ground in other areas.
So do we completely leave NATO, no. But we need to redefine the relationship and rewrite the treaty. It is time for Europe to stand on its own. We don't put this level of invest into our treaty with the South Pacific. And, we sure don't provide the same level of protection for our south american partners.
It is a shell game. They didn't have the 6 mil they said they did. Just like our end strength on 31 DEC was roughly 475,000. However, we readiness issue in the force that reduces that number to roughly 350,000.
The Europeans were counting on the conscription of Citizens and "reserve forces" to make that 6 mil happen.
I hate to begin the year like this, but I agree with alpha. To many we already are the bullies.
Just because we've stopped kissing ass all over the world doesn't mean we're being a bully. I'd like to know what things are being done that is bullying to you. I consider bullying being like Nazi Germany prior to and during WW2, Russia after WW2, and Russia, North Korea, and Iran today. Exerting influence is not bullying. If you think Trumps tweets are bullying, maybe you should hide your 'offended' self in your "safe space" somewhere.
Carrot and stick diplomacy works, as long as we have the biggest stick, and use it occasionally to make an example of somebody.
Jerry
And tomany of those, we will ALWAYS be the bully. Even if we go away completely, we will continue to be blamed by those that keep their power by fighting against us
-Mikhail Kalashnikov
That's true. There are several leaders out there that will continue to point at us and tell their countries that we are the problem. However, we also have a policy of Self Determination that has different definition from the rest of the world's.
Yep, we stick our noses in countries who are not truly our allies ... we interfere in the social progression of them in the name of democracy where feudal lords have ruled longer than the US has been around ... we push many of our beliefs and ways on them since we “know better” and NATO along with the UN does the same quite a bit also. What good is building something that is not really wanted and will start to fall apart once our support is withdrawn. Now when there is a relationship and true assistance is asked for and wanted find but you can’t save those who don’t understand and want our interference.
- George Orwell
To me it implies we are going in that direction, and I disagree. Bush was a "nation builder" and that was definitely a bit of bullying. Obama interfered with middle eastern and north African countries as well by helping militant "rebels" overthrow the existing governments. Was that not bullying? I just don't see Trump as a nation builder or a bully.
I don't think we can just bail out at this point, and besides there are a lot of terrorists to get rid of over there before they come here.
Sent from my SM-S907VL using Tapatalk
― Douglas Adams
I think the problem is much more cultural when it comes to radicalization. The children of almost all of these people that are being schooled in the Madrassa's are radicalized by the time they leave the school system. They are taught to hate Jews and all the other "infidels." The rest are being affected by what they see on the internet. Sure it's a game of whack-a-mole, but what else are we going to do but kill as many as we can? Maybe we should be even more aggressive.
Europeans will be responsible for their own demise. We need to end the program of importing all who want to come here as well.....change the system into need basis only, like Trump wants.