Perhaps the Europeans had it right.

[Torus34]

For quite a while the US has castigated the European members of NATO for their lackluster investments in their military forces. We are now witness to the actual performance of the Russian Army, the prime concern of NATO. Compared to what we have been led to believe by some, it is proving to be what the Chinese would call a paper tiger. The military of one small nation, certainly not armed with the latest weaponry, appears to be able to fight the Russian Army to a standstill. NATO forces, as presently constituted, would probably be able to do at least as well, if not considerably better, against Russia.

Meanwhile, the citizens of the NATO countries have had monies available for their citizens which would have gone to funding an excessively strong military.

And so it goes . . . .

Regards, stay safe 'n well 'n remember the Big 5.

 

[Chomsky]

For quite a while the US has castigated the European members of NATO for their lackluster investments in their military forces. We are now witness to the actual performance of the Russian Army, the prime concern of NATO. Compared to what we have been led to believe by some, it is proving to be what the Chinese would call a paper tiger. The military of one small nation, certainly not armed with the latest weaponry, appears to be able to fight the Russian Army to a standstill. NATO forces, as presently constituted, would probably be able to do at least as well, if not considerably better, against Russia.

Meanwhile, the citizens of the NATO countries have had monies available for their citizens which would have gone to funding an excessively strong military.

And so it goes . . . .

Regards, stay safe 'n well 'n remember the Big 5.

That's an interesting take, but I must ask:

"Do we want to take a risk"?

Perhaps we just got lucky?

 

[Torus34]

That's an interesting take, but I must ask:

"Do we want to take a risk"?

Perhaps we just got lucky?

Hi. Always an honor to have you respond to one of my little sallies.

The real risk, I'm a-thinkin', is that presented by missile-delivered atomic weaponry. We presently have 9 nations armed with atomic weapons. Two of these are dictatorships. Even given the best of modern technology, a secure defense against such weaponry does not, and perhaps cannot, exist regardless of expenditures.

Regards, stay safe 'n well.

 

[Chomsky]

Hi. Always an honor

Likewise!

to have you respond to one of my little sallies.

Hah! Great expression!

The real risk, I'm a-thinkin', is that presented by missile-delivered atomic weaponry. We presently have 9 nations armed with atomic weapons. Two of these are dictatorships. Even given the best of modern technology, a secure defense against such weaponry does not, and perhaps cannot, exist regardless of expenditures.

That's a much different issue than the larger general concerns, without a doubt.

I see no way to put that genie back in the bottle.

But as to your earlier musings about general welfare items, I very much agree that is indeed a good point. It's a constant balance.

Regards, stay safe 'n well.

 

[Lloyd Christmas]

For quite a while the US has castigated the European members of NATO for their lackluster investments in their military forces. We are now witness to the actual performance of the Russian Army, the prime concern of NATO. Compared to what we have been led to believe by some, it is proving to be what the Chinese would call a paper tiger. The military of one small nation, certainly not armed with the latest weaponry, appears to be able to fight the Russian Army to a standstill. NATO forces, as presently constituted, would probably be able to do at least as well, if not considerably better, against Russia.

Meanwhile, the citizens of the NATO countries have had monies available for their citizens which would have gone to funding an excessively strong military.

And so it goes . . . .

Regards, stay safe 'n well 'n remember the Big 5.

We don't need to spend anywhere close to the amount we do for our military, but there is too much profit from defense contractors providing arms. And our military also works to secure resources and allow our corporations to exploit. Our military isn't much about keeping us safe but keeping corporate interests and free flowing oil at a discount.

it's disgraceful what we spend while our country is rife with so many issues, crumbling, we are being robbed with for profit healthcare, etc

 

[Rexedgar]

We, (the US,) have a monster to feed.

Edit: I used less words than the above poster

 

[mrjurrs]

For quite a while the US has castigated the European members of NATO for their lackluster investments in their military forces. We are now witness to the actual performance of the Russian Army, the prime concern of NATO. Compared to what we have been led to believe by some, it is proving to be what the Chinese would call a paper tiger. The military of one small nation, certainly not armed with the latest weaponry, appears to be able to fight the Russian Army to a standstill. NATO forces, as presently constituted, would probably be able to do at least as well, if not considerably better, against Russia.

Meanwhile, the citizens of the NATO countries have had monies available for their citizens which would have gone to funding an excessively strong military.

And so it goes . . . .

Regards, stay safe 'n well 'n remember the Big 5.

Guns and butter. The US excels in spending on guns, butter...not so much.

Vietnam, a conflict the American President (Kennedy) knew we couldn't win as early as 1963, defunded the Great Society. The Great Society had cut American poverty almost in half during the first term of LBJ's presidency.

 

[Torus34]

We don't need to spend anywhere close to the amount we do for our military, but there is too much profit from defense contractors providing arms. And our military also works to secure resources and allow our corporations to exploit. Our military isn't much about keeping us safe but keeping corporate interests and free flowing oil at a discount.

it's disgraceful what we spend while our country is rife with so many issues, crumbling, we are being robbed with for profit healthcare, etc

Hi, Lloyd Christmas!

Thank you for taking time to comment on my post.

It is one thing to ask voters to take time to study the actual military risks we, as a nation face and evaluate whether our current military capability is proper for our protection.

It is quite another for a politician to say that we've neglected our military, put our children's lives at risk and, [Heavens!] are soft on Communism.

The average voter is busy living his life. He isn't necessarily given to scholarship.

'Nuf said.

Regards, stay safe 'n well.

 

[Torus34]

Guns and butter. The US excels in spending on guns, butter...not so much.

Vietnam, a conflict the American President (Kennedy) knew we couldn't win as early as 1963, defunded the Great Society. The Great Society had cut American poverty almost in half during the first term of LBJ's presidency.

Hi, mrjurrs!

Thanks for reading and responding.

The United States of America, with its unique [Ed.: Note the word unique as opposed to exceptional,] governmental system, has a federal legislature which is vulnerable to a number of things. One of them is copious applications of that age-old balm, salicylate of gold.

Regards, stay safe 'n well.

 

[ttwtt78640]

We don't need to spend anywhere close to the amount we do for our military, but there is too much profit from defense contractors providing arms. And our military also works to secure resources and allow our corporations to exploit. Our military isn't much about keeping us safe but keeping corporate interests and free flowing oil at a discount.

it's disgraceful what we spend while our country is rife with so many issues, crumbling, we are being robbed with for profit healthcare, etc

Yep, you are seeing what a huge single-payer (congressionally funded) system has devolved into. Meanwhile, many folks are calling for the creation of M4A - yet another but much larger single-payer (congressionally funded) system. Of course, those very same congress critters would be trusted to do better at funding (and controlling the costs of?) the next (even larger) single-payer system they create.

 

[Lloyd Christmas]

Yep, you are seeing what a huge single-payer (congressionally funded) system has devolved into. Meanwhile, many folks are calling for the creation of M4A - yet another but much larger single-payer (congressionally funded) system. Of course, those very same congress critters would be trusted to do better at funding (and controlling the costs of?) the next (even larger) single-payer system they create.

We see single payer working in every industrialized country in the world and it works great, and we see what for profit healthcare does to this country, bankruptcy, people dying from treatable conditions because they can't afford it, being denied coverage, hospital workers making mistakes and killing people because they are overworked and underpaid. so the people at the top can take the profits.

And if we had campaign finance reform, then the politicians wouldn't be bought and paid for by the corporations and they wouldn't be robbing the treasury blind to feed the greedy. And which side always defends the millionaires and billinoaires? it's not democrats

 

[mrjurrs]

Hi, mrjurrs!

Thanks for reading and responding.

The United States of America, with its unique [Ed.: Note the word unique as opposed to exceptional,] governmental system, has a federal legislature which is vulnerable to a number of things. One of them is copious applications of that age-old balm, salicylate of gold.

Regards, stay safe 'n well.

It makes me laugh when people refer to American exceptionalism like it is only a good thing. I'd point out gun deaths, incarceration rates, and national debt is exceptional in America as well. I appreciate the nuance of a unique governing system.

 

[Torus34]

It makes me laugh when people refer to American exceptionalism like it is only a good thing. I'd point out gun deaths, incarceration rates, and national debt is exceptional in America as well. I appreciate the nuance of a unique governing system.

Hi again.

You might enjoy tracking down the work of Alexis de Tocqueville, Democracy In America. He found us to be 'exceptional', but not in the ways expounded by some of the 'conservative' entertainers on American AM radio.

Regards.

 

[ttwtt78640]

We see single payer working in every industrialized country in the world and it works great, and we see what for profit healthcare does to this country, bankruptcy, people dying from treatable conditions because they can't afford it, being denied coverage, hospital workers making mistakes and killing people because they are overworked and underpaid. so the people at the top can take the profits.

And if we had campaign finance reform, then the politicians wouldn't be bought and paid for by the corporations and they wouldn't be robbing the treasury blind to feed the greedy. And which side always defends the millionaires and billinoaires? it's not democrats

I agree, thus placed the blame where it belongs - with our congress critters. We also see far lower ‘defense’ spending in other industrialized countries.

I don’t share your optimism about campaign finance reform laws, created by allegedly corrupt politicians, as being a viable solution to their own alleged corruption.

 

[Fishking]

For quite a while the US has castigated the European members of NATO for their lackluster investments in their military forces. We are now witness to the actual performance of the Russian Army, the prime concern of NATO. Compared to what we have been led to believe by some, it is proving to be what the Chinese would call a paper tiger. The military of one small nation, certainly not armed with the latest weaponry, appears to be able to fight the Russian Army to a standstill. NATO forces, as presently constituted, would probably be able to do at least as well, if not considerably better, against Russia.

Meanwhile, the citizens of the NATO countries have had monies available for their citizens which would have gone to funding an excessively strong military.

And so it goes . . . .

Regards, stay safe 'n well 'n remember the Big 5.

I'd push back on their weaponry, as we've been dumping thousands of modern piece of weaponry into Ukraine and we are also supporting them in more than just weaponry. Also include in there that this is a limited war, and if it was full out then you'd see much more destructive pushes by Russia. That aside, Russia does have a small economy, so there is something to what you say.

Also keep in mind that the US spent over 20 years in Afghanistan, against an adversary that was for sure working with low-grade equipment and significantly less international support and we left without resolution there as well. Does that mean the US is a paper tiger?

 

[Mycroft]

For quite a while the US has castigated the European members of NATO for their lackluster investments in their military forces. We are now witness to the actual performance of the Russian Army, the prime concern of NATO. Compared to what we have been led to believe by some, it is proving to be what the Chinese would call a paper tiger. The military of one small nation, certainly not armed with the latest weaponry, appears to be able to fight the Russian Army to a standstill. NATO forces, as presently constituted, would probably be able to do at least as well, if not considerably better, against Russia.

Meanwhile, the citizens of the NATO countries have had monies available for their citizens which would have gone to funding an excessively strong military.

And so it goes . . . .

Regards, stay safe 'n well 'n remember the Big 5.

Evidently, one European member of NATO thinks more military spending...albeit, after Russia invaded...is a good thing to do.

Germany Building Up Military Following Russian Invasion, Defense Stocks Surge – [your]NEWS

Stock prices of defense companies rose after German Chancellor Olaf Scholz announced that his country would raise military spending, and build up its forces and capabilities, as a response to Russia’s invasion of Ukraine.

yournews.com

 

[Gateman_Wen]

Evidently, one European member of NATO thinks more military spending...albeit, after Russia invaded...is a good thing to do.

Germany Building Up Military Following Russian Invasion, Defense Stocks Surge – [your]NEWS

Stock prices of defense companies rose after German Chancellor Olaf Scholz announced that his country would raise military spending, and build up its forces and capabilities, as a response to Russia’s invasion of Ukraine.

yournews.com

But how was anyone to know?

 

[Mycroft]

But how was anyone to know?

LOL!!

You don't react AFTER THE FACT...unless you are a fool.

 

[HangLow]

I agree, thus placed the blame where it belongs - with our congress critters. We also see far lower ‘defense’ spending in other industrialized countries.

I don’t share your optimism about campaign finance reform laws, created by allegedly corrupt politicians, as being a viable solution to their own alleged corruption.

​

 

[HangLow]

It makes me laugh when people refer to American exceptionalism like it is only a good thing. I'd point out gun deaths, incarceration rates, and national debt is exceptional in America as well. I appreciate the nuance of a unique governing system.

​

 

[mrjurrs]

View attachment 67382871​

I do not believe that government is evil. I believe it can make life better for its' constituents and the globe.

 

[Lafayette]

Meanwhile, the citizens of the NATO countries have had monies available for their citizens which would have gone to funding an excessively strong military.

And when has "funding a strong military" ever avoided a war between two countries?

Never, me-thinks ...

PS: The problem with modern-warfare (alla Putin) is that those who make-war do so without committing their own children to the task of conducting it.

 

[Infinite Chaos]

Meanwhile, the citizens of the NATO countries have had monies available for their citizens which would have gone to funding an excessively strong military.

And so it goes . . . .

I think most of us Europeans would be happier spending more on our defence needs. Putin put a great deal of effort into European politicians that wanted to cut defence or even the idea of an EU military force.
We now see the worth of Russian promises to smaller neighbours so hopefully the movement towards an integrated and powerful European military will really move forward after this.

 

[Lafayette]

SUCH INANE STUPIDITY

We are now witness to the actual performance of the Russian Army, the prime concern of NATO. Compared to what we have been led to believe by some, it is proving to be what the Chinese would call a paper tiger. The military of one small nation, certainly not armed with the latest weaponry, appears to be able to fight the Russian Army to a standstill. NATO forces, as presently constituted, would probably be able to do at least as well, if not considerably better, against Russia.

What you fail to understand is that the Russian Army at present is fighting a war that most soldiers would prefer to avoid.

Which is why Putin is changing tactics. He now really-'n-truly wants a negotiated settlement. Which will likely include the parts of the Ukraine that speak Russian and wish to be Russian. (If that is their foolish notion of a "better life".)

And that is what is going to happen along with one more important qualification. That is, the Ukraine will ask (inevitably) and likely obtain admission to either NATO or the European Union. Which will change the complexity of the matter. Meaning this: Should the Ukraine inevitably become a member of the EU, then likely also NATO.

Which will mean (upon implementation) that a NATO nation borders on Russia. Which should upset the class of Russians presently running the country (on an historical moneyed boondoggle).

Putin & Co are quite likely to detest such a happening. But, after all, they started this war. They could still negotiate the separation of certain parts of the Russian-speaking Ukraine. But not one kilometer more.

Moreover, why any Ukrainian would want to become a member of a Toxic-State like Russia today is beyond comprehension - but if that is what they want, then give it to them! (See map of Russian-speaking Ukraine here.)

Such inane stoopidity deserves what it gets - a Russia run by the super-rich. If that factor cannot spark an internal revolution in Russia then nothing can ... !

 

[Torus34]

I'd push back on their weaponry, as we've been dumping thousands of modern piece of weaponry into Ukraine and we are also supporting them in more than just weaponry. Also include in there that this is a limited war, and if it was full out then you'd see much more destructive pushes by Russia. That aside, Russia does have a small economy, so there is something to what you say.

Also keep in mind that the US spent over 20 years in Afghanistan, against an adversary that was for sure working with low-grade equipment and significantly less international support and we left without resolution there as well. Does that mean the US is a paper tiger?

Hi, Fishking!

Thank you for your response.

In reply to your question, much depends upon what percent of a country's military forces were/are brought to bear.

Regards, stay safe 'n well.