• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's 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!

"Open Skies" Treaty Withdrawal...

There is disagreement regarding that:
There's always going to be disagreements.

Some of the other members said it would be useful to them, and they are welcome to continue it. The US has even offered to sell them our 60 year old aircraft to do so.
 
I was discussing the numbers as they were agreed upon, because they weren't agreed upon per capita. If anyone is trying to change the conversation to get the results they want, its you.

There is no dispute over what the agreement was (for one thing it does NOT call for the expenditure target to be met RIGHT NOW! the way that you imply).

The dispute is over the REASONS and the LOGIC.

The WHY of the defence spending really depends on the WHAT is to be defended against. The US position amounts (essentially) to maintaining that "The Russian Hordes will ravage Europe INSTANTLY if NATO is not armed to the teeth.". The position of the rest of NATO amounts (essentially) to "We don't think so.".

The LOGIC of the defence spending is (from the US position) essentially "We spend billions of dollars all over the world and you don't - so that means that you should spend more in Europe than we do.".

Now, if the US was spending more on defending NATO than the other members of NATO were spending on defending NATO, I might see some logic to the US position. It isn't, I don't.

BTW, you do realize that what you are talking about is an "agreement" and is NOT a "treaty". The US government (especially under the current administration) has made its position on "agreements" very clear - if the US doesn't feel like complying with an "agreement" then it doesn't have to. Why you should get so bent out of shape when the governments of other countries take the same position is beyond me.
 
There is no dispute over what the agreement was (for one thing it does NOT call for the expenditure target to be met RIGHT NOW! the way that you imply).

The dispute is over the REASONS and the LOGIC.

The WHY of the defence spending really depends on the WHAT is to be defended against. The US position amounts (essentially) to maintaining that "The Russian Hordes will ravage Europe INSTANTLY if NATO is not armed to the teeth.". The position of the rest of NATO amounts (essentially) to "We don't think so.".

The LOGIC of the defence spending is (from the US position) essentially "We spend billions of dollars all over the world and you don't - so that means that you should spend more in Europe than we do.".

Now, if the US was spending more on defending NATO than the other members of NATO were spending on defending NATO, I might see some logic to the US position. It isn't, I don't.

BTW, you do realize that what you are talking about is an "agreement" and is NOT a "treaty". The US government (especially under the current administration) has made its position on "agreements" very clear - if the US doesn't feel like complying with an "agreement" then it doesn't have to. Why you should get so bent out of shape when the governments of other countries take the same position is beyond me.
I recently read a book called War Plan:UK, written by investigative journalist Duncan Campbell-I think it's out of print. Within a chapter on the Cold War he quoted from declassified UK Foreign Office documents which stated, and I paraphrase, 'at no time did the USSR intend either localised or general war against the West; on the contrary, and in contrast to what we heard publicly from both military leaders and certain political entities, they maintained an increasingly positive dialogue with the West'.
 
There is no dispute over what the agreement was (for one thing it does NOT call for the expenditure target to be met RIGHT NOW! the way that you imply).

The dispute is over the REASONS and the LOGIC.

The WHY of the defence spending really depends on the WHAT is to be defended against. The US position amounts (essentially) to maintaining that "The Russian Hordes will ravage Europe INSTANTLY if NATO is not armed to the teeth.". The position of the rest of NATO amounts (essentially) to "We don't think so.".

The LOGIC of the defence spending is (from the US position) essentially "We spend billions of dollars all over the world and you don't - so that means that you should spend more in Europe than we do.".

Now, if the US was spending more on defending NATO than the other members of NATO were spending on defending NATO, I might see some logic to the US position. It isn't, I don't.

BTW, you do realize that what you are talking about is an "agreement" and is NOT a "treaty". The US government (especially under the current administration) has made its position on "agreements" very clear - if the US doesn't feel like complying with an "agreement" then it doesn't have to. Why you should get so bent out of shape when the governments of other countries take the same position is beyond me.

No the US position on defense is its past time for Europe to start taking care of itself again.

You seem a lot more bent out of shape about this than I am.
 
No the US position on defense is its past time for Europe to start taking care of itself again.

You seem a lot more bent out of shape about this than I am.
When has Europe ever not taken care of itself? We are a nuclear power, and jointly European armed forces are a match for any attempt at invasion.
 
Already asked and answered....but lets try it again.

Lets see if I understand the leftist position on this. Under the existing treaty, Russia repeatedly and continuously violated the treaty by denying participating members the right to conduct surveillance over their country and territories (and significantly...have done so for MANY YEARS...since at least 2014). Even the CNN article stated clearly that Russia has no problem violating the arrangement while the US and NATO were blindly going about letting Russia do whatever it wanted. Rather than tolerate the refusal by Putin's Russia, Trump withdrew from the treaty...and leftists believe THAT is somehow benefiting Russia...by now denying them unfettered access to our airspace while they continue to deny access to their space to the US and its NATO allies.

So essentially, all of this makes sense. Leftists prefer the type of foreign policy Obama offered to the world where he essentially offered every country in the world to **** him over...because I guess he would see that as his way of apologizing for Americas previous history of arrogance. And Harris will do the same thing.
 
No the US position on defense is its past time for Europe to start taking care of itself again.

You seem a lot more bent out of shape about this than I am.
We have no effective fighting force capability left in Europe now thanks to the joint effort to strengthen NATO's military capability It's on its own should there be any sudden massive attack from Russia. And I suspect the combined NATO military response would dominate in that case anyway. They're very good.
 
We have no fighting force capability left in Europe now thanks to the joint effort to strengthen NATO's military capability It's on its own should there be any sudden massive attack from Russia. And I suspect the combined NATO military response would dominate in that case anyway. They're very good.
 
Already asked and answered....but lets try it again.

Lets see if I understand the leftist position on this. Under the existing treaty, Russia repeatedly and continuously violated the treaty by denying participating members the right to conduct surveillance over their country and territories (and significantly...have done so for MANY YEARS...since at least 2014). Even the CNN article stated clearly that Russia has no problem violating the arrangement while the US and NATO were blindly going about letting Russia do whatever it wanted. Rather than tolerate the refusal by Putin's Russia, Trump withdrew from the treaty...and leftists believe THAT is somehow benefiting Russia...by now denying them unfettered access to our airspace while they continue to deny access to their space to the US and its NATO allies.

So essentially, all of this makes sense. Leftists prefer the type of foreign policy Obama offered to the world where he essentially offered every country in the world to **** him over...because I guess he would see that as his way of apologizing for Americas previous history of arrogance. And Harris will do the same thing.
You clearly don't understand anything. Both sides have set limits and use decoys and deception. This idea that we're always boy scouts and playing by the rule while those devious Russkies are playing us is so silly as to be childish.
 
It is true that the U.S. has invested heavily in building up that force but only because it benefits us. Our security was the driving influence. It's always been so.
Removing the US-Russia's
'traditional' nemesis from the European theater-actually makes us safer; Russia and the former USSR always regarded the presence of US military on her doorstep as provocative-especially the siting of US nuclear missiles in Turkey, aimed at Russia.
 
Removing the US-Russia's
'traditional' nemesis from the European theater-actually makes us safer; Russia and the former USSR always regarded the presence of US military on her doorstep as provocative-especially the siting of US nuclear missiles in Turkey, aimed at Russia.
I hadn't considered that...but, of course.
 
Let's see, they said 'Russia isn't complying, so we'll dismantle our planes used to determine whether Russia is complying.' Does that make sense to you?

Unless they are too old of no use, they wont be dismantled. They will be repurposed or sold or given to allies. And they comply by allowing our flights as opposed to prohibiting them over areas they don't want us to fly over.
 
I recently read a book called War Plan:UK, written by investigative journalist Duncan Campbell-I think it's out of print. Within a chapter on the Cold War he quoted from declassified UK Foreign Office documents which stated, and I paraphrase, 'at no time did the USSR intend either localised or general war against the West; on the contrary, and in contrast to what we heard publicly from both military leaders and certain political entities, they maintained an increasingly positive dialogue with the West'.

I recommend to you Arthur Schlesinger Jr.'s "Origins of the Cold War" (Foreign Affairs Vol. 46, No. 1 [Oct., 1967]) which is available without charge through JSTOR.

Another interesting aspect is the post-war career of Lt. Gen. Reinhard Gehlen and the influence his (almost totally) fabricated "intelligence" (which he obtained through his almost totally fabricated) "organization" which proved to be almost exactly what the hawks in the US government wanted to hear and which he "sold" to the US in return for immunity from prosecution for the war crimes that he would undoubtedly have been convicted of (plus a lot of money).
 
No the US position on defense is its past time for Europe to start taking care of itself again.

When you consider that the NON-US NATO military strength is approximately 2.14 times the Russian military strength, that "it's past time for Europe to start taking care of itself again" line looks really shoddy.

NATO - Military personnel NATO.JPG

You seem a lot more bent out of shape about this than I am.

Just put it down to

02 - No Tolerance for BS.jpg
 
Let's see, they said 'Russia isn't complying, so we'll dismantle our planes used to determine whether Russia is complying.' Does that make sense to you?
That's... not what was happening.... Russia was not allowing fly overs, so the United States decided not to allow fly overs either. Since they were not performing fly overs the United States decided to sell their 1960s era planes to a country that would use them.
 
When you consider that the NON-US NATO military strength is approximately 2.14 times the Russian military strength, that "it's past time for Europe to start taking care of itself again" line looks really shoddy.




Just put it down to


Whats funny is you think numbers alone will win something. Military strength is rooted in training and equipment, not just the number of soldiers.

If that card is accurate your own posts must make you angry, source your bullshit.
 
Whats funny is you think numbers alone will win something. Military strength is rooted in training and equipment, not just the number of soldiers.

If that card is accurate your own posts must make you angry, source your bullshit.
That's why the joint NATO training exercises are so important. All the learning and skills from very sophisticated militaries is shared. So you needn't worry about how well our NATO allies will perform if called on--especially now that we'll have a C-in-C who knows and respects that.
 
WW I and II.
WW1 you turned up within a few months of the end when Germany had already been fought to a standstill. WW2? Hitler gave up any attempt at invading Britain by 1940 after we defeated the Luftwaffe in the Battle of Britain that Summer. You were still over a year away from Pearl Harbour and your own entry into the war. As for Lend-Lease you got a great deal out of that little arrangement, and everything we bought from you was paid for in cash, with interest. The US had its own self-interest when it came to getting involved; the Kriegsmarine was enthusiastically torpedoing your ships off your coast and presenting a national security threat. You had no option but to get involved-especially after December '41 when Japan declared war.
 
I recommend to you Arthur Schlesinger Jr.'s "Origins of the Cold War" (Foreign Affairs Vol. 46, No. 1 [Oct., 1967]) which is available without charge through JSTOR.

Another interesting aspect is the post-war career of Lt. Gen. Reinhard Gehlen and the influence his (almost totally) fabricated "intelligence" (which he obtained through his almost totally fabricated) "organization" which proved to be almost exactly what the hawks in the US government wanted to hear and which he "sold" to the US in return for immunity from prosecution for the war crimes that he would undoubtedly have been convicted of (plus a lot of money).
Thanks, I'll check it out.
 
Back
Top Bottom