Should NATO disband?

[smallvoice]

I agree with you that NATO is merely a reflection of the US' hegemony.

NATO definitely does need to be disbanded, and another organization created of entirely European nations - no US. As long as NATO exists, the US will control the European military and determine its defense. After 75 years in Europe the US has been there long enough. It is well past time for Europeans to be responsible for their own military and defense of their nations and stop depending on the US.

Probably true, but the Europeans would be speaking Russian in two months....

 

[TU Curmudgeon]

Europe seems strong enough to handle the Russian and Middle East situation.


We could cut our defense spending down from 3.4% to 2% and use that money for social programs.

Given his track record it seems likely that Mr. Trump will take the US out of NATO if he is re-elected (which still might happen given the data available as I post).

At that point Mr. Trump will have no clout remaining to force the remaining NATO members to purchase "MADE IN AMERICA" weapons.

The US defence production industry will not like that.

 

[TU Curmudgeon]

I don’t see how criticizing “allies” who’s citizens hate us is unchristian. You would have to show the theological principle at work.

We shouldn’t go to wars in foreign countries across an ocean. There’s enough domestic enemies to deal with now

But invading Canada and/or Mexico is OK - right?

 

[American]

Europe seems strong enough to handle the Russian and Middle East situation.


We could cut our defense spending down from 3.4% to 2% and use that money for social programs.

How about giving it back to those who worked for it?

 

[TU Curmudgeon]

People who want to repress my rights and kill me are not my friends. And I will never pretend so.

But its OK for you to repress their rights and/or kill them - right?

 

[TU Curmudgeon]

The United States for many years has paid more than their fair share. Now countries are paying more than in the past and the US less. Only fair!

I suggest that you take a look at the actual NATO ONLY figures. If you do that you will find that eight of the NATO countries already spend MORE on NATO (on a per capita basis) than the US spends ON NATO (on a per capita basis).

You are confusing what the US spends on "Defending The Whole World From The Creeping Godless International Communist Conspiracy" with what it spends on NATO.

 

[smallvoice]

Given his track record it seems likely that Mr. Trump will take the US out of NATO if he is re-elected (which still might happen given the data available as I post).

At that point Mr. Trump will have no clout remaining to force the remaining NATO members to purchase "MADE IN AMERICA" weapons.

The US defence production industry will not like that.

Since there is no way in Hades that Trump would even think of "taking the US out of NATO",your idea that he needs "clout" to force customers to purchase US made weapons is ludicrous. They buy them because they are the best and safest made in the world. NATO has nothing to do with it.

 

[smallvoice]

But invading Canada and/or Mexico is OK - right?

Canada maybe, but then, why would anyone want to invade Canada?

 

[TU Curmudgeon]

Since there is no way in Hades that Trump would even think of "taking the US out of NATO",your idea that he needs "clout" to force customers to purchase US made weapons is ludicrous. They buy them because they are the best and safest made in the world. NATO has nothing to do with it.

Thank you for adding to my collection of "Internet Howlers".

 

[TU Curmudgeon]

Canada maybe, but then, why would anyone want to invade Canada?

I have no idea, but the US has tried it three times and Canada is still there.

 

[smallvoice]

Thank you for adding to my collection of "Internet Howlers".

Have them fall in, and I'll inspect them.

 

[smallvoice]

I have no idea, but the US has tried it three times and Canada is still there.

So there is no reason to "invade Canada". Why did you bring it up?

 

[EMNofSeattle]

But invading Canada and/or Mexico is OK - right?

I don’t think I’ve ever advocated for such. You’d have to show me the post where I said I wanted a military invasion of either country, I mean out of tens of thousands of posts I’ve made here maybe I was drunk or telling a joke, but I’ve never said in all seriousness I advocate invading Canada nor Mexico that I can remember

 

[TU Curmudgeon]

I don’t think I’ve ever advocated for such. You’d have to show me the post where I said I wanted a military invasion of either country, I mean out of tens of thousands of posts I’ve made here maybe I was drunk or telling a joke, but I’ve never said in all seriousness I advocate invading Canada nor Mexico that I can remember

You said that you were opposed to "...wars in foreign countries across an ocean".

Both Canada and Mexico are "foreign countries" AND NEITHER of them is "across an ocean".

I didn't say that you favoured invading and conquering them, I only asked if you felt that because they were not "across an ocean" it would be, in your opinion, OK to invade and conquer them.

 

[TU Curmudgeon]

So there is no reason to "invade Canada". Why did you bring it up?

Because the person I was addressing originally stated that they were opposed to "foreign wars across an ocean" and Canada is NOT "across an ocean" from the United States of America.

Then the person I was addressing secondarily asked what reason the US would have to invade Canada and I reminded them of the historical fact that the United States of America HAS attempted to invade and conquer Canada on multiple occasions.

 

[smallvoice]

Because the person I was addressing originally stated that they were opposed to "foreign wars across an ocean" and Canada is NOT "across an ocean" from the United States of America.

Then the person I was addressing secondarily asked what reason the US would have to invade Canada and I reminded them of the historical fact that the United States of America HAS attempted to invade and conquer Canada on multiple occasions.

I can't find where we EVER invaded and tried to conquer Canada. We HAVE conducted excursions there to run the British off...but then we went home.

 

[TU Curmudgeon]

I can't find where we EVER invaded and tried to conquer Canada. We HAVE conducted excursions there to run the British off...but then we went home.

Forced from what is now the United States of America invaded what is now Canada BEFORE the American Revolution with the intention of conquering it (of course, that doesn't count because, at that time, Canada was a French colony and the invaders were British).

In 1775 "rebellious forces" from what is now the United States of America invaded what is now Canada with the intention of conquering it.

In 1812, 1813, and 1814, what is now the United States of America invaded what is now Canada AFTER the American Revolution with the intention of conquering it.

Possibly you missed school on the days that those were mentioned.

 

[smallvoice]

Forced from what is now the United States of America invaded what is now Canada BEFORE the American Revolution with the intention of conquering it (of course, that doesn't count because, at that time, Canada was a French colony and the invaders were British).

In 1775 "rebellious forces" from what is now the United States of America invaded what is now Canada with the intention of conquering it.

In 1812, 1813, and 1814, what is now the United States of America invaded what is now Canada AFTER the American Revolution with the intention of conquering it.

Possibly you missed school on the days that those were mentioned.

No, but I don't GAS about Canadian history, even when you folks write it to suit yourselves.

 

[TU Curmudgeon]

No, but I don't GAS about Canadian history, even when you folks write it to suit yourselves.

In the War of 1812, the US government ordered the US Army to invade and conquer what is now Canada. In fact provision was made for the admission of the British colonies which were conquered to be admitted to the United States of America as states.

The invasion(s) all failed.

You can call it a "draw" is you want, but a war in which the aggressor achieves NONE of their "war aims" is (in military circles) generally considered to be a "loss" for the aggressor.

However, I do realize that the War of 1812 is generally taught (in American schools) as a "HUGE WIN for the USA" (where it is taught at all).

 

[Glitch]

In the War of 1812, the US government ordered the US Army to invade and conquer what is now Canada. In fact provision was made for the admission of the British colonies which were conquered to be admitted to the United States of America as states.

The invasion(s) all failed.

You can call it a "draw" is you want, but a war in which the aggressor achieves NONE of their "war aims" is (in military circles) generally considered to be a "loss" for the aggressor.

However, I do realize that the War of 1812 is generally taught (in American schools) as a "HUGE WIN for the USA" (where it is taught at all).

That is a nice spin, but also complete fiction.

During the War of 1812 Canada didn't exist. Canada would not exist until 1860. It was called British North America at the time.

Those British North American raided and burned several American towns, killing civilians, all along the Niagara River in New York State without provocation. Which was the primary reason why the US started the Niagara Campaign of 1814 that resulted in failure. It was supported by only the northern States. Madison had no support from the south or the result would have been considerably different.

The War of 1812 was a US victory, obviously. Had the British succeeded there wouldn't be a US today. Do try to get a clue eventually.

 

[Glitch]

Probably true, but the Europeans would be speaking Russian in two months....

Sooner.

When I served in the military Germany was still divided. At the time they were predicting that NATO forces could hold Berlin maybe three days at most, and the rest of Germany for about 10 days to two weeks.

You are forgetting that most European military forces receive minimal training, and even go home during the weekends. They do not have a very effective military, although some of their equipment is top notch. Even at its peak, the US had too few forces to stop the USSR, should they ever wish to commit to seizing control of Europe.

However, it did lead us to develop a military strategy and design to take out large numbers of tanks and other equipment with as little resources as possible. Thus the A-10 was born. That military philosophy served us well during the 1991 Gulf War.

 

[TU Curmudgeon]

That is a nice spin, but also complete fiction.

During the War of 1812 Canada didn't exist. Canada would not exist until 1860. It was called British North America at the time.

As your probably didn't notice, what I wrote was

"In the War of 1812, the US government ordered the US Army to invade and conquer what is now Canada."
(emphasis added)​

Those British North American raided and burned several American towns, killing civilians, all along the Niagara River in New York State without provocation. Which was the primary reason why the US started the Niagara Campaign of 1814 that resulted in failure. It was supported by only the northern States. Madison had no support from the south or the result would have been considerably different.

On 1 June 1812, President James Madison sent a message to Congress recounting American grievances against Great Britain, though not specifically calling for a declaration of war. The House of Representatives then deliberated for four days behind closed doors before voting 79 to 49 (61%) in favour of the first declaration of war.

Prime Minister Spencer Perceval was assassinated in London on 11 May and Lord Liverpool came to power. He wanted a more practical relationship with the United States. On June 23, he issued a repeal of the Orders in Council, (which were the root cause of the US grievances).

An American army commanded by William Hull invaded Upper Canada on July 12, arriving at Sandwich (Windsor, Ontario) after crossing the Detroit River.

The Americans attempted an attack across the Niagara River on 13 October, but they were defeated at Queenston Heights. B

27 April 1813 Chauncey and Dearborn attacked York, the capital of Upper Canada. At the Battle of York, the outnumbered British regulars destroyed the fort and dockyard and retreated, leaving the militia to surrender the town. American soldiers set fire to the Legislature building, and looted and vandalised several government buildings and citizen's homes.

The War of 1812 was a US victory, obviously. Had the British succeeded there wouldn't be a US today. Do try to get a clue eventually.

The United States of America achieved 0.00% of its war aims. The UK had much more pressing matters to deal with much closer to home. (You have heard of Napoleon Bonaparte, haven't you?)

 

[TU Curmudgeon]

Sooner.

When I served in the military Germany was still divided. At the time they were predicting that NATO forces could hold Berlin maybe three days at most, and the rest of Germany for about 10 days to two weeks.

You are forgetting that most European military forces receive minimal training, and even go home during the weekends.

Did you know that most of the American military forces "go home on weekends" (and also at the end of the duty day)?

Did you know that Danish (Infantry) forces have a basic training period that is four months (17 weeks) long?

Did you know that Finish (Infantry) forces have a training period that is between 5.5 months (24 weeks) and 11 months long?

Did you know that French (Infantry) forces have a basic training period that is three months (13 weeks) long?

Did you kn ow that German (Infantry) forces have a basic training period that is three months (13 weeks) long?

Did you know that Swedish (Infantry) forces have a basic training period that is three months (13 weeks) long?

Did you know that UK (Infantry) forces have a basic training period that is six months (26 weeks) long?

Did you know that US (Infantry) forces have a basic training period that is 10 weeks long?

Do you know which of the Danish (Infantry) forces, Finish (Infantry) forces, French (Infantry) forces, German (Infantry) forces, Swedish (Infantry) forces, UK (Infantry) forces, or US (Infantry) forces has the shortest basic training program?

They do not have a very effective military, although some of their equipment is top notch.

What is your definition of "very effective military"? Are you speaking of "military efficiency" or "military effectiveness". During WWII the German Army was much more "militarily efficient" than the Russian military. However the Russian military was much more "militarily effective" than the German military.

Even at its peak, the US had too few forces to stop the USSR, should they ever wish to commit to seizing control of Europe.

In short, the US was NOT "protecting Europe" against any real threat of invasion and conquest.

However, it did lead us to develop a military strategy and design to take out large numbers of tanks and other equipment with as little resources as possible. Thus the A-10 was born.

The US has always emphasized equipment over manpower, and the A-10 is a dead duck.

That military philosophy served us well during the 1991 Gulf War.

One of the few wars that the US has actually made a profit out of. Of course, the US was fighting against an army that was poorly motivated, poorly trained, and incredibly poorly led - so that helped.

 

[Fledermaus]

Canada maybe, but then, why would anyone want to invade Canada?

Beer. Lumber. More teams for the NFL.

 

[TU Curmudgeon]

Beer.

The difference between a Canadian male youth and an American male youth is that a Canadian male youth can tell the difference between beer and water before they reach the age of 18.

Lumber.

Only if you want to lose the votes of the American Soft Wood Lumber industry (and the votes of a large number of lawyers who make good money in fruitless defences of restrictive US trade policies.

More teams for the NFL.

Only if you agree to expanding the playing field and get rid of that sissy "fourth down".

However, you should BE WARNED that Canada has hundreds of "Justin Biebers" in reserve and will not hesitate to launch an all-out "Justin Bieber Strike" if y'all gets uppity.