• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every persons position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

No Europe doesnt need Americas military shield.

bennyhill

The Philosoph from Europe
Joined
Jan 8, 2010
Messages
710
Reaction score
70
Location
Europe
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Very Liberal
During the Cold War, Americas nuclear shield was nice to have, but the war ended 20 years ago, and we have close comfortable relationship with Russia and they are integrated into Europe too.

So I suggest you save the American taxpayers by withdrawing all your troops and bases and retreat back to your island. We have different poltical goals so there is no need to maintain NATO. You want to use NATO as a poltical tool to rule the world and we want to remain a peaceful continent. We thank-you but not its time to go seperate ways in the world.

Dont forget to turn off the light, when you leave.
 

DarkWizard12

Trans-Fascist
DP Veteran
Joined
Sep 9, 2007
Messages
10,372
Reaction score
2,288
Location
Tyler TX
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Communist
...(tries to hide laughter)

No.
 

Apocalypse

DEATH TO ANTARCTICA!!!
DP Veteran
Joined
May 14, 2009
Messages
19,787
Reaction score
6,221
Location
Israel
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Centrist
Lol_wut.jpg
 

German guy

DP Veteran
Joined
Jun 9, 2010
Messages
5,187
Reaction score
4,255
Location
Berlin, Germany
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Moderate
During the Cold War, Americas nuclear shield was nice to have, but the war ended 20 years ago, and we have close comfortable relationship with Russia and they are integrated into Europe too.

So I suggest you save the American taxpayers by withdrawing all your troops and bases and retreat back to your island. We have different poltical goals so there is no need to maintain NATO. You want to use NATO as a poltical tool to rule the world and we want to remain a peaceful continent. We thank-you but not its time to go seperate ways in the world.

Dont forget to turn off the light, when you leave.

Hi benny.

I'd love to see Europe taking more responsibility when it comes to our own defense, but at the moment, it seems we neither know how to defend ourselves, nor do we want to spend any money on it.

If America leaves, we're screwed big time.
 

alexa

DP Veteran
Joined
May 14, 2009
Messages
4,684
Reaction score
1,340
Gender
Female
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
Hi benny.

I'd love to see Europe taking more responsibility when it comes to our own defense, but at the moment, it seems we neither know how to defend ourselves, nor do we want to spend any money on it.

If America leaves, we're screwed big time.

Well Germany certainly would be in a poor position but France and the UK have nukes, don't know about any other country.
 

German guy

DP Veteran
Joined
Jun 9, 2010
Messages
5,187
Reaction score
4,255
Location
Berlin, Germany
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Moderate
Well Germany certainly would be in a poor position but France and the UK have nukes, don't know about any other country.

I'm not sure nukes alone are helpful. And then, both their arsenals are marginal. There are no intercontinental nukes whatsoever in France's of Britain's arsenal.

It seems to me that not even a basic self-defense is up and running at the moment, one that could even suffice against a country like Russia, despite all their problems on that field.
 

alexa

DP Veteran
Joined
May 14, 2009
Messages
4,684
Reaction score
1,340
Gender
Female
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
I'm not sure nukes alone are helpful. And then, both their arsenals are marginal. There are no intercontinental nukes whatsoever in France's of Britain's arsenal.

It seems to me that not even a basic self-defense is up and running at the moment, one that could even suffice against a country like Russia, despite all their problems on that field.

If you are talking about the whole EU about us getting an EU army then that is so.

I am not sure who we would be expecting to invade the UK so for the time being I would think it is fine, with or without the US.
 

German guy

DP Veteran
Joined
Jun 9, 2010
Messages
5,187
Reaction score
4,255
Location
Berlin, Germany
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Moderate
If you are talking about the whole EU about us getting an EU army then that is so.

I am not sure who we would be expecting to invade the UK so for the time being I would think it is fine, with or without the US.

Not sure about the UK either. But Europe in general ... assuming the US leave, without Europe getting a proper defense up, then we'll soon no longer live in the EU, but in the "United States of Russia".
 

alexa

DP Veteran
Joined
May 14, 2009
Messages
4,684
Reaction score
1,340
Gender
Female
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
Not sure about the UK either. But Europe in general ... assuming the US leave, without Europe getting a proper defense up, then we'll soon no longer live in the EU, but in the "United States of Russia".

Germany is poorly defended. So what do you think about an EU army then? It does not seem right to be like dependent children?
 

German guy

DP Veteran
Joined
Jun 9, 2010
Messages
5,187
Reaction score
4,255
Location
Berlin, Germany
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Moderate
Germany is poorly defended. So what do you think about an EU army then? It does not seem right to be like dependent children?

I think European integration is a good answer to many problems. So I appreciate the idea of a united EU defense. It's really not necessary to maintain all the parallel structures and according needless expenses that come with 27 member states all running their own seperate defense. So I say it's a good idea.
 

Lord Tammerlain

DP Veteran
Joined
Jan 25, 2010
Messages
20,634
Reaction score
8,993
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
Hi benny.

I'd love to see Europe taking more responsibility when it comes to our own defense, but at the moment, it seems we neither know how to defend ourselves, nor do we want to spend any money on it.

If America leaves, we're screwed big time.

Screwed really?

Just who could invade Germany right now in the world?

Or France?

I am not talking about French or German interests in South East Asia, just German or French territory
 

German guy

DP Veteran
Joined
Jun 9, 2010
Messages
5,187
Reaction score
4,255
Location
Berlin, Germany
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Moderate
Screwed really?

Just who could invade Germany right now in the world?

Or France?

I am not talking about French or German interests in South East Asia, just German or French territory

Russia. Now that nobody gets me wrong, I don't think Russia is still the same as during the Cold War. But as we've seen in the past years, they seem to follow rather imperialist policies and don't shy away from using their military to get their way. And while the Russian force may be in a pityful state, due to disarmament after the Cold War ... I think Europe's forces, especially Germany's, are even in a much more pityful state. If we sent the Americans away now, without doing anything to improve defense, that's basically an invitation for the Russians to give us a "hello".
 

Lord Tammerlain

DP Veteran
Joined
Jan 25, 2010
Messages
20,634
Reaction score
8,993
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
Russia. Now that nobody gets me wrong, I don't think Russia is still the same as during the Cold War. But as we've seen in the past years, they seem to follow rather imperialist policies and don't shy away from using their military to get their way. And while the Russian force may be in a pityful state, due to disarmament after the Cold War ... I think Europe's forces, especially Germany's, are even in a much more pityful state. If we sent the Americans away now, without doing anything to improve defense, that's basically an invitation for the Russians to give us a "hello".

Russia's military is worse then pititful

It had to use 40% of its combat ready forces to take on Georgia a few years ago, was tied down by Chechnya a small region of 1 million people. Russia would have trouble taking on Poland, let alone invading Poland and then Germany.
 

Gardener

free market communist
DP Veteran
Joined
Sep 5, 2005
Messages
26,657
Reaction score
15,927
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
The problems Europe will be facing in a few decades are not those that can really be helped by our American military.
 

Civil1z@tion

Member
Joined
Jun 1, 2010
Messages
247
Reaction score
105
Location
US
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian
I think the US could safely pull out most of its ground forces in Europe. A handful of airbases would be nice to keep for logistical purposes, and I would like to see continued cooperation between Europe and the US (including a continuing of NATO, I doubt Russia would want to invade Europe while the US still has a mutual defense pact with them even if Russia's military wasn't in pretty pitiful shape), but all that being said most of the bases there are just a drain on the US without significantly helping to secure Europe. Of course the money that comes into areas with the bases is one reason that Europeans countries haven't asked the US leave (and indeed have lobbied for the US to stay at times) but really I think its better if we keep the alliance, but drop all but a few airbases (and maybe a missile defense system if European countries want it).
 

Aunt Spiker

Cheese
DP Veteran
Joined
Oct 20, 2009
Messages
28,431
Reaction score
16,986
Location
Sasnakra
Gender
Female
Political Leaning
Moderate
During the Cold War, Americas nuclear shield was nice to have, but the war ended 20 years ago, and we have close comfortable relationship with Russia and they are integrated into Europe too.

So I suggest you save the American taxpayers by withdrawing all your troops and bases and retreat back to your island. We have different poltical goals so there is no need to maintain NATO. You want to use NATO as a poltical tool to rule the world and we want to remain a peaceful continent. We thank-you but not its time to go seperate ways in the world.

Dont forget to turn off the light, when you leave.

Everyone has an opinion and is entitled to it.

Obviously the opinion of your leaders differs from yours and that's ok, too.
 

bennyhill

The Philosoph from Europe
Joined
Jan 8, 2010
Messages
710
Reaction score
70
Location
Europe
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Very Liberal
I feel the american security shield is a drug that fosters european dependence on big brother. Europe must be strong enough to go it alone without America. This forced dependency upon Europe must be abolished. I favor the french president De Gaule wish for an independ Europe, free from American-Russian influence. We have all the resources we need to become independent, but as long as we are living from American handouts, we are too lazy to go it alone. We must pull ourselfs up by our own bootstraps and provide for our own defense. This is necessary, otherwise we wont be taken seriously as an actor on the international scene. Yes we can, but will we?
 

German guy

DP Veteran
Joined
Jun 9, 2010
Messages
5,187
Reaction score
4,255
Location
Berlin, Germany
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Moderate
Russia's military is worse then pititful

It had to use 40% of its combat ready forces to take on Georgia a few years ago, was tied down by Chechnya a small region of 1 million people. Russia would have trouble taking on Poland, let alone invading Poland and then Germany.

Maybe you're right, and I hope you are.

And probably Russia wouldn't try to do anything like that under normal circumstances. I'm just not so sure about the worst case scenario. Maybe Russia wouldn't successfully invade Poland or even Germany, but what about places like Estonia or Lithuania? They have already strong tensions with Russia, and large Russian minorities there. If the US were gone, would Russia really feel sufficiently deterred not to gamble a little for these places?

And what about a worst case scenario, like when the economic crisis leads to further destabilization and major unrest in the main EU/NATO countries? Say, much of the French, German and Italian military is busy keeping order at home ...

I don't think Russia is a significant threat for the time being, under normal circumstances. Just not sure how stable the EU would be without US support in the worst case.
 

bennyhill

The Philosoph from Europe
Joined
Jan 8, 2010
Messages
710
Reaction score
70
Location
Europe
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Very Liberal
The Balts are direct under the US shield if Im correctly informed? You might not like Russia but there far more trust worthy than Iran or North Korea. They abide by every international contract they sign. Since 1800 they havent invaded a european country. They have been attacked many times and have used eastern europe as a buffer zone, but they didnt invade hungry to keep it. Eastern europe was a product of the colld war not an act of aggression as I see it. Yes Russia sent troops into Georgia, but those are complex issues difficult for outsiders to understand. We should look into the furture and the Russians have no ambitions to make there country larger by force. They can achieve the same goals through friendship treaties like they just did in the Ukraine. I think that we have a golden opertunity to embrace Russia as a partner/ compeditor but not an enemy. The latter is far cheaper an in my view sane.

For any old cold war soilders, your nukes on Russia is your trumph card, so what do you have to lose with seeing Russia with a positive but pragmatic view?
 

Alvin T. Grey

Well-known member
Joined
Jan 9, 2010
Messages
839
Reaction score
203
Location
Dublin
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
I'm not sure nukes alone are helpful. And then, both their arsenals are marginal. There are no intercontinental nukes whatsoever in France's of Britain's arsenal.

It seems to me that not even a basic self-defense is up and running at the moment, one that could even suffice against a country like Russia, despite all their problems on that field.
Trident II has a range of 12000Km.
 

bennyhill

The Philosoph from Europe
Joined
Jan 8, 2010
Messages
710
Reaction score
70
Location
Europe
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Very Liberal
It worries me, when Americas discuss the actual use of nuclear weapons. Who should I fear more iran, or the United States?
 

Aunt Spiker

Cheese
DP Veteran
Joined
Oct 20, 2009
Messages
28,431
Reaction score
16,986
Location
Sasnakra
Gender
Female
Political Leaning
Moderate
Well there's a delicate line between "being independent" and then "accepting help when it's needed." There's nothing wrong with either of these and you can be both dependent and independent quite harmoniously even though it's a delicate balance.

Once that line or balance is thrown off then you have a new set of problems. Over-dependence where a country/culture/people depend *too* much on the "government" to: bail them out of a political tight spot, a military quandary or a financial pit. A slog in which there are too many conflicting views and no one can really decide what's right and what's wrong and tensions only grow and fester. And a revolt in which the presence of the "back up" force is unwelcome and citizens express that.

However, I don't feel that Europe as a whole is really bad off (as in - we're not stepping in to quell the unruly crowds and settle disputes whenever they arise, much unlike our involvement in the Middle East). Some countries are quite solid on their own, thus, we're involved with them less. Other countries do need/want us to be involved more and thus, we're there when they need us. Our presence and involvement in all the European countries (Union or otherwise) are on a case by case basis - what works in France doesn't work in Hungary . . . and so on.

I see nothing wrong with having an ally present - if something tragic DOES happen then we'll be there to help. Beyond that state of caution we really are serving no purpose with our presence. If something does happen we're there.

It worries me, when Americas discuss the actual use of nuclear weapons. Who should I fear more iran, or the United States?

Haha - I understand that but there really is no need to worry.

Politically: We're dismantling, slowly, our arsenals and taking nuclear weapons out of our loop. Our country is becoming more liberal (slowly but surely) in basic policies and currently the Democratic Party holds full sway - whether people like it or not. The use of nuclear power (weapons, even energy) is against the Democratic Party Platform - and even a growing number of Republicans and Conservatives are turning against this type of weaponry.

Socially: The notion of using nuclear weapons is far less socially acceptable and this "humanity" in our military conflicts will continue to grow in importance - constantly urging Washington to be considerate of the culture and people which we war against.A lot of people, now, see that the use of nuclear weapons in WWII didn't just alter the political direction and focus of the war (which was a good thing) but it annihilated innocent people who never should have been harmed. A lot of people really feel that and connect to it, a lot of people (like me) in our own country are against the very idea.

If our country was to drop a nuke or atom bomb on someone - how do you think we, here, would react? Believe it or not the notion is sickening and the majority of people in this country would be outraged and horrified. In fact, I think if something like that were to happen it would divide our country completely and whoever called for a nuclear strike wouldn't make it much further in life.

I know that it's hard to understand or imagine what us, here, might think or feel - you and I both see a lot of "yeah! Let's nuke em!" tripe coming from people, but those people are still in the minority on the issue and talk is cheap.

Strategically: I'd worry more about Iran if I were you. Iran doesn't approve of your country anymore than they approve of ours. Your view of our political-strategies and ties to your country aside - we are on the same side of the scale and support and uphold the basic values of life and liberty. Iran, well, not so much.
 
Last edited:

bennyhill

The Philosoph from Europe
Joined
Jan 8, 2010
Messages
710
Reaction score
70
Location
Europe
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Very Liberal
Im not talking about refusing help in our darkest our as we did in 1917, 1941, and 1948 but now we are strong enough that we dont need an ally. It makes us morally weak to be tied to the US security shield. Most europeans are content to scorn America, but accept your unlimited security shield. I go another way. My assumption is that we are equals, but that is only possible, when we pay for our own defense and solve our own problems. This does not make me anti-american but idenpent. You dont want help with your oil-leck and I dont want you to defend us, unless the situtaltioln is hopless again. The Europe of 2010 is different than 1990 or earlier. I trust the Russians more than I trust the Middle East. We have so many problems that we need to solve together, that I doubt a european war is thinkable.
 

alexa

DP Veteran
Joined
May 14, 2009
Messages
4,684
Reaction score
1,340
Gender
Female
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
Haha - I understand that but there really is no need to worry.

Politically: We're dismantling, slowly, our arsenals and taking nuclear weapons out of our loop
. Our country is becoming more liberal (slowly but surely) in basic policies and currently the Democratic Party holds full sway - whether people like it or not. The use of nuclear power (weapons, even energy) is against the Democratic Party Platform - and even a growing number of Republicans and Conservatives are turning against this type of weaponry.

Socially: The notion of using nuclear weapons is far less socially acceptable and this "humanity" in our military conflicts will continue to grow in importance - constantly urging Washington to be considerate of the culture and people which we war against.A lot of people, now, see that the use of nuclear weapons in WWII didn't just alter the political direction and focus of the war (which was a good thing) but it annihilated innocent people who never should have been harmed. A lot of people really feel that and connect to it, a lot of people (like me) in our own country are against the very idea.

If our country was to drop a nuke or atom bomb on someone - how do you think we, here, would react? Believe it or not the notion is sickening and the majority of people in this country would be outraged and horrified. In fact, I think if something like that were to happen it would divide our country completely and whoever called for a nuclear strike wouldn't make it much further in life.


Aunt Spiker, I have read that the thing about the US cutting back on their nukes is a deception. They may be cutting back on something but something else will be doing the same thing. I have a poor memory, but definitely read it is a deception.
 

Aunt Spiker

Cheese
DP Veteran
Joined
Oct 20, 2009
Messages
28,431
Reaction score
16,986
Location
Sasnakra
Gender
Female
Political Leaning
Moderate
Im not talking about refusing help in our darkest our as we did in 1917, 1941, and 1948 but now we are strong enough that we dont need an ally. It makes us morally weak to be tied to the US security shield. Most europeans are content to scorn America, but accept your unlimited security shield. I go another way. My assumption is that we are equals, but that is only possible, when we pay for our own defense and solve our own problems. This does not make me anti-american but idenpent. You dont want help with your oil-leck and I dont want you to defend us, unless the situtaltioln is hopless again. The Europe of 2010 is different than 1990 or earlier. I trust the Russians more than I trust the Middle East. We have so many problems that we need to solve together, that I doubt a european war is thinkable.

While I understand your feelings on this - I think it's a bit careless to say "get out, we don't need you or want you!" and then to say "well, we'll call you if something horrid happens!"

The point of our presence is to prevent something horrid from happening. . . we don't want to have to have WWIII going on. What's keeping Iran from attacking your country? Anything? If so, what? I, personally, would prefer my government err on the side of caution and keep a shield around just in case. . . rather than toss the shield aside and say "no thank you!" . . . and then regret it when a spear is thrust into my face while I sleep.

Now, none of us are in the strategic room in the Pentagon with a firm grasp of our world's military climate, for one thing - so we can only discuss thoughts and beliefs based on limited knowledge - But I feel that if our presence deters other countries from attacking your country then it should be maintained to some degree.

Likewise - if our country was constantly under imminent threat from physical attack on a mass scale from, say, North Korea or Iran and we couldn't actually handle with adequate response then, absolutely, we'd accept some help. I'd hope we would, anyway - if we wouldn't that would be a bit careless and vein.

The fact of the matter is that it is just unwise to let feelings get in the way of smarts when you're dealing with a world full of psycho religious nuts who want to put you asunder for their god and greater good. If there was *no* threat against your country from anyone else then you'd have a fair point but right now is just not the time to really push it.

Talk about it, sure, debates, discussion are always good - but to really want your leaders to act on it right now - no.
 
Top Bottom