Europe still beating the drum for America?

the recent Russia's drive to quit the Intermediate-range Nuclear Forces (INF)

Generally, NATO expansion eastwards so praised by Americans is posing a grave threat to Europe making the Russian bear dangerously irritant. NATO=America don't guard us any more. So Mr. Schroeder idea of America dominated NATO's overhaul is well-timed imo.

I have never been under illusion we can fully rely on the USA in our security matters. This is just one more painful confirmation that I think rightly. Generally, NATO expansion eastwards so praised by Americans is posing a grave threat to Europe making the Russian bear dangerously irritant. NATO=America don't guard us any more. So Mr. Schroeder idea of America dominated NATO's overhaul is well-timed imo.

Well the American commitment worked fairly well during the Cold War, several Berlin crises and the various Soviet interventions in Eastern Europe. However given the free ride in defense that most Europeans have come to expect, I believe most Americans don't really give a damn if NATO dissolves.

Careful what you wish for - you may well get it.

georgeob1 wrote:

Well the American commitment worked fairly well during the Cold War, several Berlin crises and the various Soviet interventions in Eastern Europe. However given the free ride in defense that most Europeans have come to expect, I believe most Americans don't really give a damn if NATO dissolves.

Careful what you wish for - you may well get it.

Well, I'm only speaking for myself, but it wouldn't absolutely ruin my life if it happened.

I think of the Europeans as more ally than adversary. But I don't think it would make much real difference if NATO disappeared. We'd still be allies with the Europeans.

That said, given the choice between keeping NATO and scrapping it, I say we might as well keep it.


(I do like the idea of being able to have intermediate missiles again though. That is just what we need for pre-invasion bombing in the sorts of wars we fight these days.)

This is an interesting point of view.

The part about fear of irritating the Russian bear seems to me to be a rather unique one, but I wonder.

Is this a concern that resonates among Europeans?

Doesn't Niro's expression of concern over the threat posed to "Europe" by NATO expansion into Eastern Europe, tend to demonstrate (in at least his case) a distinctive Old Europe world view?

It is tempting to hope that Europe will take on a greater share, if not the entirety, of the burden to protect its freedoms. I have no doubt that the money American taxpayers spend to safeguard Europe could be put to good use at home, but to do so would lead to a chain of events that might work against our interests.

By assuming so large a share of the burden, America:

#1 Effectively prevents a re-militarized Europe.
#2 Enables Europe to continue to fund a welfare society that, generally speaking, results in a relatively docile version of, historically, one of the most violent populations on the face of the Earth.

Enables Europe to continue to fund a welfare society that, generally speaking, results in a relatively docile version of, historically, one of the most violent populations on the face of the Earth.

Quote:

Enables Europe to continue to fund a welfare society that, generally speaking, results in a relatively docile version of, historically, one of the most violent populations on the face of the Earth.

Was this intended to be funny? (This is either very intelligent subtle satire or very stupid conservative blather. I can't tell.)

Do you know where US history started?

ebrown_p wrote:

Quote:

Enables Europe to continue to fund a welfare society that, generally speaking, results in a relatively docile version of, historically, one of the most violent populations on the face of the Earth.

Was this intended to be funny? (This is either very intelligent subtle satire or very stupid conservative blather. I can't tell.)

Do you know where US history started?

I sure do, why do you think we left!

I agree that more nukes is good.

The US must lead the world by showing them that nuclear capability is the key to gaining political leverage... and so we are leading.

Current developments look promising. Iran is clearly seeing the US point of view concerning its question for nuclear capability, and US policy is also having its effect in North Korea.

Most promising is the fact that India and Pakistan have now reached the point of nuclear stalemate.

The fact that we are developing weapons that can avoid the need to use ground troops by indiscriminately destroying a large swath of land and put fear into the hearts of people we are liberating is a sure sign of hope to the world.

Nuclear arms are the future because they allow nations to project power without risking its own troops. This is why it is great that the US is leading the way as an example to all of the nations of the world.

I'm all for the new types of nukes called bunker or mountain busters. If it would keep troops from having to enter dangerous underground areas then I'm all for it.

Baldimo wrote:

ebrown_p wrote:

Quote:

Enables Europe to continue to fund a welfare society that, generally speaking, results in a relatively docile version of, historically, one of the most violent populations on the face of the Earth.

Was this intended to be funny? (This is either very intelligent subtle satire or very stupid conservative blather. I can't tell.)

Do you know where US history started?

I sure do, why do you think we left!

Quote:

To stone witches

Check

Quote:

lead brutal campaigns to conquer Indian territory

Didn't know they were here, but Check.

Quote:

set up a slave economy

Didn't start the slave trade, but Check.

Quote:

kill each other in a brutal civil war

Check. This is still the largest # of Americans lost in war, and we keep getting better. Less and less soldiers die in each war.

Quote:

conquer land from Mexico

Mexico didn't exist, but Check.

Quote:

, kill commies in vietnam

Check

Quote:

kill homosexuals

Doesn't happen. Non-check.

Doesn't Niro's expression of concern over the threat posed to "Europe" by NATO expansion into Eastern Europe, tend to demonstrate (in at least his case) a distinctive Old Europe world view?

By assuming so large a share of the burden, America:

#1 Effectively prevents a re-militarized Europe.

I can tell from your ignorance that you know nothing about the weapons I am talking about. I surprised, you are usually one of the people with all the answers. Try reading up on the new technology and you might be impressed.

That maybe true, but those were not the ones I was talking about. He jumped to conclusions and showed his ignorance on the subject. All I did was call him on it, as has been done to me on numerous times.

The question is what effect is this going to have on the global community.

There are two philosophies that the United States can take...

1. Nuclear weapons are a danger to the world. They are weapons of mass destruction that should not be used as part of military conflict. It is too difficult to disarm the current powers with dangerously upsetting the status quo, but we feel it is in the strong interest of the world that all nations stop developing these weapons. The United States will comply with this.

2. Nuclear weapons are a current part of military technology. They give military advantages that we will take advantage of and thus we will continue developing them.

If the US follows the first philosophy, it can make a good argument to the world. We want you to stop and we will stop.

If the US follows the second philosophy, than what do you expect from countries that are adversaries of the US? If we use nuclear technolgy to gain military advantage, then of course any country that wants a military advantage is going to follow suit. Iran and North Korea etc. know very well that a nuclear program will give them a lot of leverage and that is why they are pursuing them, but who can blame them.... they are just following the US lead.