- Joined
- May 5, 2019
- Messages
- 9,710
- Reaction score
- 4,684
- Location
- Staten Island, NY USA
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Other
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?
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.
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.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
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.
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
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.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.
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, 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.
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'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.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.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.
But how was anyone to know?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
LOL!!But how was anyone to know?
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.
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.
I do not believe that government is evil. I believe it can make life better for its' constituents and the globe.
Meanwhile, the citizens of the NATO countries have had monies available for their citizens which would have gone to funding an excessively strong military.
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 . . . .
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.
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?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?