Donald trump is making good business deals for America before he even gets into office. Who do you think these nato allies are going to buy weapons from?. That is a huge amount of money for the USA, if 10 countries need to spend and extra 1% of their gdp per year on weapons, that is alot of bread. Why do you think he always says this stuff that sounds so outlandish?, its because they are taking the bread out of our kids mouths.
Thats weird that canadas top defense official is from a foreign 3rd world country.
You know why "NATO has been in support of US driven "missions" and protecting its interests"? the US pretty much runs the show, when your countries military makes up over half of NATO you pretty much dictate what goes on, so yeah it pretty much is another branch of the US military, considering each time things like logistics were left up to other NATO members throughout NATOs history it has always been a disaster, lets not forget how France and England went into Libya, the US followed as support then were left holding their dicks when both backed out expecting the US to take over...
It's sort of like how the US can tell the UN to go fuck themselves, the US accounts for 22% of UN (voluntary) contributions, the next closest is Japan with 9%
Edit, I don't support either of these 2 fucks running just for the record
Nobody in the US "took over" on Unified Protector, it was a NATO mission, a rather successful one. You may be thinking of the early unilateral interventions in March 2011? There's not much to support your claim of "logistical disasters" in those operations by France, UK and Canada. At which point the US wanted to scale back its involvement and it was then handed over to NATO in Operation Unified Protector, commanded jointly by US, Canadian and Italian elements.
Am I missing a joke in here? Is this like the 201x equivalent of a "saved your asses in ww2" thing?
It's also not as if your spending is entirely dedicated to NATO. It's just a number on paper, it doesn't account for whether or not that money is put into NATO missions or unilateral missions by the US such as Iraq/Syria(OIR), Pakistan, Sudan, Cameroon, and then all of the shit that sits in storage at home. US obviously has a lot to get a handle of in terms of their spending needs compared to practically every other NATO member.
It's nobody else's problem that they've got their fingers in too many pies. But hey, it's obviously something to be overtly prideful about lol. So you got that going for ya.
Our role as a member of NATO is more than just protecting ourselves from some unlikely Warsaw Pact revival tour. It is important for our role as peace keepers, but also our role in ensuring safety and stability to people who need it most and can't get it. Our boys and girls work and fight hard and I'm proud of their contributions to the cause. In short, we need NATO because it's part of our identity going back to WW1.
I think we contribute enough, could do more, not a big deal...only becomes an issue every 2-4 years when some blowhard politician is begging for votes from the "fuck all those other people!" demographic.
Also in before "but where?!", it's called JTF2 and actual functioning opsec...not a bunch of SEALs and MARSOC, or their friends/family, posting shit on facebook.
Your point was that we lost to a small rebel group with obsolete technology when soviet era technology was the modern technology during the war in Vietnam seeing as that war was a proxy war between the USA and the USSR (Soviet Union if you didn't know), but we didn't lose to their military, we lost because the American people were against the war, so the USA didn't lose to a bunch of insurgents with what you idiotically thought was outdated weaponry, but we lost due to the war losing the support of the American people. On top of that, ISIS was not the enemy in Iraq or Afghanistan and only popped because we won the war in Iraq and left a power vacuum. Last I checked, military victories don't necessitate setting up a stable government before you leave, all that's required is defeating your enemy which we did. Al Quaeda was defeated, Saddam Hussein and his party were taken out of power, the Taliban was taken out of power in Afghanistan, Osama bin Laden was killed, and the 2015 Taliban Resurgence in Afghanistan was stopped. Saying that we lost the war in Iraq because ISIS popped up is like saying that we lost WWI because Nazi's popped up and took over Germany, as in it's just retarded logic to say we lost the war because a new enemy rose out of the ashes of the old one that we defeated. And if that's not enough of an analogy for you, look up the Fall of Carthage. The Romans won and Carthage fell as a result, but by some miracle Carthage was able to come back from defeat and fought the Romans again only to lose a second time. The point is that the fact of the Romans defeating Carthage the first time is not erased by Carthage coming back from that very same defeat.
I kind of assumed Trumps comments about not automatically helping allies in NATO was a back-handed way of saying that US wouldn't come to Turkeys defence because of all the shit they've been causing for everyone else.
BASIC CAMPFIRE for WARCHIEF UK Prime Minister!
The only reason that the American army was pulled out was because the American people protested the war and made congress bring the troops home. And how were the Americans sick of losing the war? Most of the major battles ended in American victory and by the end of the war the North Vietnamese had lost as many as 1.1 million troops while the American/South Vietnamese joint force had lost only about 290,000 troops (with 230,000 of those being South Vietnamese). So who was losing the war up until protests against the war pushed congress to call the troops back? The side with over a million losses or the side that suffered only about 60,000 losses?
All that being said not a military loss =/= not a loss. Regardless of the reason, America went to war to stop the communists from taking over Vietnam and in the end they did just that, so it's a loss for America, but it was by no means due to the military might of the Viet Cong which is what was claimed in the post I was responded to. Had the American people not protested against the war then America would've won, or are you going to keep trying to claim that the side that had suffered only 5.5% of the losses that their opponents did was losing the war?
Last edited by Vynny; 2016-07-26 at 03:13 PM.
Trump isn't aiming to be helpful. he's aiming to get his name out there. it's marketing 101
Hi