PDA

View Full Version : US Defense Sec: NATO faces a "dim, if not dismal" future



SwordoftheVistula
06-10-2011, 11:21 PM
About time we stopped wasting money on this dinosaur. Once people whose minds are stuck 30 years ago in the Cold War finally get out of authority, we can finally adopt a policy more in line with the 21st century:

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2011/06/10/gates-blasts-nato-questions-future-alliance/

Brussels – America's military alliance with Europe -- the cornerstone of U.S. security policy for six decades -- faces a "dim, if not dismal" future, U.S. Defense Secretary Robert Gates said Friday in a blunt valedictory address.

In his final policy speech as Pentagon chief, Gates questioned the viability of NATO, saying its members' penny-pinching and lack of political will could hasten the end of U.S. support. The North Atlantic Treaty Organization was formed in 1949 as a U.S.-led bulwark against Soviet aggression, but in the post-Cold War era it has struggled to find a purpose.

"Future U.S. political leaders - those for whom the Cold War was not the formative experience that it was for me - may not consider the return on America's investment in NATO worth the cost," he told a European think tank on the final day of an 11-day overseas journey.

Gates has made no secret of his frustration with NATO bureaucracy and the huge restrictions many European governments placed on their military participation in the Afghanistan war. He ruffled NATO feathers early in his tenure with a direct challenge to contribute more front-line troops that yielded few contributions.

Even so, Gates' assessment Friday that NATO is falling down on its obligations and foisting too much of the hard work on the U.S. was unusually harsh and unvarnished. He said both of NATO's main military operations now -- Afghanistan and Libya -- point up weaknesses and failures within the alliance.

"The blunt reality is that there will be dwindling appetite and patience in the U.S. Congress -- and in the American body politic writ large -- to expend increasingly precious funds on behalf of nations that are apparently unwilling to devote the necessary resources or make the necessary changes to be serious and capable partners in their own defense," he said.

Without naming names, he blasted allies who are "willing and eager for American taxpayers to assume the growing security burden left by reductions in European defense budgets."

The U.S. has tens of thousands of troops based in Europe, not to stand guard against invasion but to train with European forces and promote what for decades has been lacking: the ability of the Europeans to go to war alongside the U.S. in a coherent way.

The war in Afghanistan, which is being conducted under NATO auspices, is a prime example of U.S. frustration at European inability to provide the required resources.

"Despite more than 2 million troops in uniform, not counting the U.S. military, NATO has struggled, at times desperately, to sustain a deployment of 25,000 to 45,000 troops, not just in boots on the ground, but in crucial support assets such as helicopters, transport aircraft, maintenance, intelligence, surveillance and reconnaissance, and much more," Gates said.

Gates, a career CIA officer who rose to become the spy agency's director from 1991 to 1993, is retiring on June 30 after 4 1/2 years as Pentagon chief. His designated successor, Leon Panetta, is expected to take over July 1.

For many Americans, NATO is a vague concept tied to a bygone era, a time when the world feared a Soviet land invasion of Europe that could have escalated to nuclear war. But with the demise of the Soviet Union in 1991, NATO's reason for being came into question. It has remained intact -- and even expanded from 16 members at the conclusion of the Cold War to 28 today.

But reluctance of some European nations to expand defense budgets and take on direct combat has created what amounts to a two-tier alliance: the U.S. military at one level and the rest of NATO on a lower, almost irrelevant plane. Gates said this could spell the demise of NATO.

"What I've sketched out is the real possibility for a dim, if not dismal future for the trans-Atlantic alliance," he said. "Such a future is possible, but not inevitable. The good news is that the members of NATO - individually and collectively - have it well within their means to halt and reverse these trends and instead produce a very different future."

Gates has said he believes NATO will endure despite its flaws and failings. But his remarks Friday point to a degree of American impatience with traditional and newer European allies that in coming years could lead to a reordering of U.S. defense priorities in favor of Asia and the Pacific, where the rise of China is becoming a predominant concern.

To illustrate his concerns about Europe's lack of appetite for defense, Gates noted the difficulty NATO has encountered in carrying out an air campaign in Libya.

"The mightiest military alliance in history is only 11 weeks into an operation against a poorly armed regime in a sparsely populated country, yet many allies are beginning to run short of munitions, requiring the U.S., once more, to make up the difference," he said.

His comment reflected U.S. frustration with the allies' limited defense budgets.

"To avoid the very real possibility of collective military irrelevance, member nations must examine new approaches to boosting combat capabilities," he said.

He applauded Norway and Denmark for providing a disproportionate share of the combat power in the Libya operation, given the size of their militaries. And he credited Belgium and Canada for making "major contributions" to the effort to degrade the military strength of Libya's Moammar Gadhafi.

"These countries have, with their constrained resources, found ways to do the training, buy the equipment and field the platforms necessary to make a credible military contribution," he said.

But they are exceptions, in Gates' view.

A NATO air operations center designed to handle more than 300 flights a day is struggling to launch about 150 a day against Libya, Gates said.

On a political level, the problem of alliance purpose in Libya is even more troubling, he said.

"While every alliance member voted for the Libya mission, less than half have participated, and fewer than a third have been willing to participate in the strike mission," he said. "Frankly, many of those allies sitting on the sidelines do so not because they do not want to participate, but simply because they can't. The military capabilities simply aren't there."

Afghanistan is another example of NATO falling short despite a determined effort, Gates said.

He recalled the history of NATO's involvement in the Afghan war -- and the mistaken impression some allied governments held of what it would require of them.

"I suspect many allies assumed that the mission would be primarily peacekeeping, reconstruction and development assistance - more akin to the Balkans," he said, referring to NATO peacekeeping efforts there since the late 1990s. "Instead, NATO found itself in a tough fight against a determined and resurgent Taliban returning in force from its sanctuaries in Pakistan."

He also offered praise and sympathy, noting that more than 850 troops from non-U.S. NATO members have died in Afghanistan. For many allied nations these were their first military casualties since World War II.

He seemed to rehearse his position in the coming debate within the Obama administration on how many troops to withdraw from Afghanistan this year.

"Far too much has been accomplished, at far too great a cost, to let the momentum slip away just as the enemy is on his back foot," he said.

He said the "vast majority" of the 30,000 extra troops Obama sent to Afghanistan last year will remain through the summer fighting season. He was not more specific.

BeerBaron
06-10-2011, 11:29 PM
Seems about right, Europe has been pretty selfish with the US military and taxpayer. while the euro citizen might hate the US military the euro politician wants them, its saves them money.

Americans get a lot of shit worldwide even though almost every western country is in some way benefiting from the US soldier and US tax payer.

Joe McCarthy
06-11-2011, 12:08 AM
NATO is one of the core institutions of Western Civilization, and its demise will accompany the West's demise which will result from the end of 500 years of Western dominance. Removing pillars of cooperation between Europe and America will only create disunity and distance between us which will assist China.

Loddfafner
06-11-2011, 12:21 AM
The main purpose of NATO appears to be the elimination of inconvenient governments one by one, at a regular pace, under dubious pretexts. These interventions allow for the expansion of the transatlantic economy and they result in regimes more transparent to Western intelligence. More importantly, they are occasions to test machinery and logistics. For all practical purposes, they are like whole nations going to the gym: to exercise and build military muscle.

Joe McCarthy
06-11-2011, 12:33 AM
The main purpose of NATO appears to be the elimination of inconvenient governments one by one, at a regular pace, under dubious pretexts. These interventions allow for the expansion of the transatlantic economy and they result in regimes more transparent to Western intelligence. More importantly, they are occasions to test machinery and logistics. For all practical purposes, they are like whole nations going to the gym: to exercise and build military muscle.

The real point of NATO is to stand as a bulwark of collective defense for the bulk of Western Civilization. Its very existence on this front deters would be challengers and brings a measure of peace unlikely to exist otherwise. One can be critical of individual NATO actions while not favoring extreme solutions like destroying it. Its basic purpose is very valuable, even if it may arguably make mistakes occasionally.

SwordoftheVistula
06-11-2011, 12:39 AM
The real point of NATO is to stand as a bulwark of collective defense for the bulk of Western Civilization.

Against what? Soviet Union ceased to exist 2 decades ago. All the threats to western civilization come from within, immigration & political correctness.

Joe McCarthy
06-11-2011, 12:56 AM
Against what? Soviet Union ceased to exist 2 decades ago. All the threats to western civilization come from within, immigration & political correctness.

Russia is still a potential threat, though increasingly the threat comes from the Far East. The very idea though of establishing it as principle that an attack on any of us is an attack on all of us tends to deter aggression against us. With a rising non-Western world why would we choose NOW of all times to destroy the Atlantic alliance, and why would we want to do things that tend to dissolve ties between America and Europe anyway?

poiuytrewq0987
06-11-2011, 01:14 AM
It's true what Gates said on the Allies' lack of contribution in Afghanistan. Most European countries have less than 1,000 troops compared to America's 90,000 troops (which makes up 68% of total troop contribution (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ISAF_troop_number_statistics#Table_of_ISAF.2FNATO_ Contributors) in Afghanistan). It's no wonder Afghanistan conflict is still going on because of a lack of participation by European powers (which, funnily enough is an oxymoron). With the lack of contribution and participation by the Allied powers the consequence is the insurgency not wavering. If European countries were serious about Afghanistan, with it being the hotbed of terrorists then they'd contribute a lot more and sweep up Afghanistan in no more than 2-3 years. NATO is experiencing the exact same problem Russia had when it went in Afghanistan. They had only 115,000 troops which was even less than what we have there today but the difference wasn't at all great. All in all, a lack of trying will not accomplish anything.

Joe McCarthy
06-11-2011, 01:26 AM
It's true what Gates said on the Allies' lack of contribution in Afghanistan. Most European countries have less than 1,000 troops compared to America's 90,000 troops (which makes up 68% of total troop contribution (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ISAF_troop_number_statistics#Table_of_ISAF.2FNATO_ Contributors) in Afghanistan). It's no wonder Afghanistan conflict is still going on because of a lack of participation by European powers (which, funnily enough is an oxymoron). With the lack of contribution and participation by the Allied powers the consequence is the insurgency not wavering. If European countries were serious about Afghanistan, with it being the hotbed of terrorists then they'd contribute a lot more and sweep up Afghanistan in no more than 2-3 years. NATO is experiencing the exact same problem Russia had when it went in Afghanistan. They had only 115,000 troops which was even less than what we have there today but the difference wasn't at all great. All in all, a lack of trying will not accomplish anything.

True, though we won't lose in Afghanistan as long as we stay there. The Taliban is little more than a pest. To root them out though and wage proper COIN warfare, we need a disparity of at least 10-1 and we don't have that due largely to the fact that the European public is not keen on sending more troops. Of course, we could put the Afghan population in internment camps, which would be preferable to cross-border skirmishes with Pakistan, but we have far too many human rights groups for that.

Psychonaut
06-11-2011, 01:48 AM
The main purpose of NATO appears to be the elimination of inconvenient governments one by one, at a regular pace, under dubious pretexts. These interventions allow for the expansion of the transatlantic economy and they result in regimes more transparent to Western intelligence. More importantly, they are occasions to test machinery and logistics. For all practical purposes, they are like whole nations going to the gym: to exercise and build military muscle.

Agreed, and I think these are all good things. But, do we really need NATO for this? The European nations certainly need our support if they want their militaries to go to the gym, but the converse doesn't seem to be true. The only real reason I can think is that engaging in this kind of behavior under a NATO banner adds an outward appearance of legitimacy that it mightn't have if we went it alone.

SwordoftheVistula
06-11-2011, 02:40 AM
Agreed, and I think these are all good things. But, do we really need NATO for this? The European nations certainly need our support if they want their militaries to go to the gym, but the converse doesn't seem to be true. The only real reason I can think is that engaging in this kind of behavior under a NATO banner adds an outward appearance of legitimacy that it mightn't have if we went it alone.

I don't know how many liberal votes this 'legitimacy' pulls for neoconservatives. Probably none in the case of Republican Presidents, but maybe enough in the case of Democrat Presidents. The only people who really vote on foreign policy anyways are those who have a connection to a foreign country (mainly Jews & Cubans, these days, with the Irish situation having died down)


Russia is still a potential threat

To do...what, exactly? At the present time, they're a major oil exporter which is not a part of OPEC, and are fighting with Islamic minorities on their borders, which means it would make sense to make friends with them. Also, if one is under the impression that China is a threat, Russia would make the most sensible ally by far.


With a rising non-Western world why would we choose NOW of all times to destroy the Atlantic alliance, and why would we want to do things that tend to dissolve ties between America and Europe anyway?

Ever hear the quote the Germans made (too late) about their alliance with Austria-Hungary? 'Chained to a corpse'

Joe McCarthy
06-11-2011, 02:59 AM
To do...what, exactly? At the present time, they're a major oil exporter which is not a part of OPEC, and are fighting with Islamic minorities on their borders, which means it would make sense to make friends with them. Also, if one is under the impression that China is a threat, Russia would make the most sensible ally by far.
'

Russia could be an ally against China, but if NATO ends and we pull out, Russia being Russia, will likely look to impose itself on its near periphery. What the anti-American set is ignorant of is a decline in US power doesn't result in some 'liberation' from imaginary American evils. It results in someone worse filling the power vacuum we create, and Russia is not a responsible power that should be able to turn much of Eastern and Northern Europe into its sphere of influence again. They're too much of a source of instability.

Joe McCarthy
06-11-2011, 03:02 AM
I just want to observe that we apparently just had two Europeans thank an American for calling Europe a 'corpse'. I think anti-Americanism is a form of mental illness.

Birka
06-11-2011, 03:09 AM
True, though we won't lose in Afghanistan as long as we stay there.

And how long would that be? We have already been there longer than WWII and longer than the Vietnam police action.

We are $14.4 Trillion in current debt, and $60 Trillion in unfunded future liabilities (Medicare and Social Security...).

Where do you see this magical funding coming from for continued military conflicts through out the Middle East?

Joe McCarthy
06-11-2011, 03:30 AM
And how long would that be? We have already been there longer than WWII and longer than the Vietnam police action.

We are $14.4 Trillion in current debt, and $60 Trillion in unfunded future liabilities (Medicare and Social Security...).

Where do you see this magical funding coming from for continued military conflicts through out the Middle East?

As I've noted elsewhere on this board, defense spending as a percentage of GDP is about what it was in the 80s. It isn't breaking us - an aging population and entitlement liabilities is. We can take pin prick losses in Afghanistan indefinitely (as European powers did in their colonies oftentimes) and staying there has strategic value especially as it could give us position to choke China's oil supply. They're working with Pakistan to devise ways to overcome their weakness with the Strait of Malacca.

The Lawspeaker
06-11-2011, 03:31 AM
America is close to a corpse right now.. and we are little better.

Joe McCarthy
06-11-2011, 03:41 AM
America is close to a corpse right now.. and we are little better.

We shouldn't hasten our death by weakening the bonds between us. Friends until the end I say.

poiuytrewq0987
06-11-2011, 03:42 AM
We shouldn't hasten our death by weakening the bonds between us. Friends until the end I say.

I don't think the US is going to collapse anytime soon. Its economy grew by 4% last year and I won't be surprised if it grows even more this year.

SwordoftheVistula
06-11-2011, 08:04 AM
Russia could be an ally against China, but if NATO ends and we pull out, Russia being Russia, will likely look to impose itself on its near periphery. What the anti-American set is ignorant of is a decline in US power doesn't result in some 'liberation' from imaginary American evils. It results in someone worse filling the power vacuum we create, and Russia is not a responsible power that should be able to turn much of Eastern and Northern Europe into its sphere of influence again. They're too much of a source of instability.

So what? Regardless of whether these American evils are imaginary, the Russian ones are too. So Russia reasserts authority over parts of Georgia, or some other place which was part of Russia's 1914 borders, who cares, not relevant, certainly not worth a huge expenditure based on 'might eventually result in."


As I've noted elsewhere on this board, defense spending as a percentage of GDP is about what it was in the 80s. It isn't breaking us - an aging population and entitlement liabilities is. We can take pin prick losses in Afghanistan indefinitely (as European powers did in their colonies oftentimes) and staying there has strategic value especially as it could give us position to choke China's oil supply. They're working with Pakistan to devise ways to overcome their weakness with the Strait of Malacca.

Each US soldier in Afghanistan costs $1 million per year. Also, ending all these wars, and drawing down or eliminating NATO and all these other overseas military installations & operations is politically feasible. All these entitlements programs are much tougher to deal with politically, as we saw from the Republicans losing a once-safe Congressional seat in upstate New York as soon as they proposed reforming these programs. As to trying to choke China's oil supply, that is just a stupid & suicidal idea which would accomplish nothing of value.


I don't think the US is going to collapse anytime soon. Its economy grew by 4% last year and I won't be surprised if it grows even more this year.

Hmm, let's take a look at some of today's economics news headlines:

Dow Jones falls below 12,000 (http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052702304259304576377051184752240.html?m od=WSJ_hp_LEFTTopStories)

NASDAQ turns negative on year, fueled by weakened Chinese exports and prospect of a 2nd Greek bailout (http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/06/10/markets-stocks-idUSN1020965620110610)

Housing prices expected to drop 4-5% over coming year (http://www.cnbc.com/id/43354054)

Most Americans will not be able to retire until 70s or 80s (http://www.marketwatch.com/story/many-of-us-wont-be-able-to-retire-until-our-80s-2011-06-09)

Older people can't retire, younger people can't find jobs (http://www.theapricity.com/forum/showthread.php?t=28508)

Joe McCarthy
06-11-2011, 09:03 AM
With any potential adversary it is always wise to have as many strategic advantages as possible. Should war with China come our position in Afghanistan could be of vital significance.

ikki
06-11-2011, 10:02 AM
Russia is still a potential threat, though increasingly the threat comes from the Far East. The very idea though of establishing it as principle that an attack on any of us is an attack on all of us tends to deter aggression against us. With a rising non-Western world why would we choose NOW of all times to destroy the Atlantic alliance, and why would we want to do things that tend to dissolve ties between America and Europe anyway?

a united nordic power would be more powerful than russia.. russia is far less relevant than say pakistan

SwordoftheVistula
06-11-2011, 10:29 AM
With any potential adversary it is always wise to have as many strategic advantages as possible. Should war with China come our position in Afghanistan could be of vital significance.

'War with China' is a fantasy approaching science fiction. The enormous amounts of money being wasted in Afghanistan, and the military in general, is real. Especially since all of China's economy relies on exports to the US.

Joe McCarthy
06-11-2011, 10:41 AM
a united nordic power would be more powerful than russia.. russia is far less relevant than say pakistan

By 2050 Russia will have the sixth largest economy in the world - larger than Germany and much larger than Pakistan. That will provide it with plenty of resources to bully countries like yours, or even possibly reabsorb it as Dugin has proposed.

Aces High
06-11-2011, 11:19 AM
Against what? Soviet Union ceased to exist 2 decades ago.

Thats why the defence people inenvted islam as a threat..;)

It sort of killed two birds with one stone,first we get the privilege of having our young people killed fighting israels enemies,and second the defence corp ltd plc gets to make millions if not trillions in a never ending war on a relativley non existent elusive enemy.

Albion
06-11-2011, 11:32 AM
The U.S. has tens of thousands of troops based in Europe, not to stand guard against invasion but to train with European forces and promote what for decades has been lacking: the ability of the Europeans to go to war alongside the U.S. in a coherent way.

Nobody asked for them. Europe still has Britain, France and Russia with quite decent capabilities, although Russia is part of the threat. :rolleyes2:

The Lawspeaker
06-11-2011, 12:19 PM
Thats why the defence people inenvted islam as a threat..;)

It sort of killed two birds with one stone,first we get the privilege of having our young people killed fighting israels enemies,and second the defence corp ltd plc gets to make millions if not trillions in a never ending war on a relativley non existent elusive enemy.
And in order to make it so that people would believe it they dragged them in by their millions.

Albion
06-11-2011, 01:41 PM
And in order to make it so that people would believe it they dragged them in by their millions.


The Abrahamic religions have always been a threat to each other, its nothing new.
Bad immigration policies poured petrol onto the fire.

poiuytrewq0987
06-11-2011, 03:15 PM
Thats why the defence people inenvted islam as a threat..;)

It sort of killed two birds with one stone,first we get the privilege of having our young people killed fighting israels enemies,and second the defence corp ltd plc gets to make millions if not trillions in a never ending war on a relativley non existent elusive enemy.

Invented? The Islamics have been trying to conquer Europe since 634 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Byzantine%E2%80%93Arab_Wars) and they partially got there in 1453 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fall_of_Constantinople). We foil hundreds of terrorist attacks every year all over Europe. If we just sat on our asses and did nothing then without a doubt the Arabs would be furiously launching assaults on Europe in the name of Allah. This war in Afghanistan is necessary, period.

The Lawspeaker
06-11-2011, 03:19 PM
Invented? The Islamics have been trying to conquer Europe since 634 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Byzantine%E2%80%93Arab_Wars) and they partially got there in 1453 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fall_of_Constantinople). We foil hundreds of terrorist attacks every year all over Europe. If we just sat on our asses and did nothing then without a doubt the Arabs would be furiously launching assaults on Europe in the name of Allah along with heavy casualties. This war in Afghanistan is necessary, period.
Then why fight them in Afghanistan and not here ? Why not end it all by dropping the atom bomb on Mecca ? If our politicians would have been serious about this war (and they aren't) then it would a total war by now. They are in our streets.. not in a distant cave somewhere out in a place that happens to have a lot of opium, a lot of oil, a lot of natural gas and a lot of minerals.

Fact is: it's a nice little financial and political earner.. not a serious war. They import them because it gives them votes: our votes because we cling on to these crooks hoping they will get rid of Islam for us. It's a nice little game.

poiuytrewq0987
06-11-2011, 03:23 PM
Then why fight them in Afghanistan and not here ? Why not end it all by dropping the atom bomb on Mecca ? If our politicians would have been serious about this war (and they aren't) then it would a total war by now. They are in our streets.. not in a distant cave somewhere out in a place that happens to have a lot of opium, a lot of oil and natural gas and a lot of minerals.

Fact is: it's a nice little financial and political earner.. not a serious war. They import them because it gives them votes: our votes because we cling on to these crooks hoping they will get rid of Islam for us. It's a nice little game.


Because of political correctness that dominates our everyday politics.

The Lawspeaker
06-11-2011, 03:25 PM
Because of political correctness that dominates our everyday politics.
No not because of that. That's a farce they came up with themselves after importing them (and they are still importing them). It's because it's divide and conquer, mate, for as long as the game's up. Then they will go to the Cayman Islands with their money and live our their lifes in luxury.

poiuytrewq0987
06-11-2011, 03:33 PM
No not because of that. That's a farce they came up with themselves after importing them (and they are still importing them). It's because it's divide and conquer, mate, for as long as the game's up. Then they will go to the Cayman Islands with their money and live our their lifes in luxury.

I don't think they are intentionally sabotaging Europe but it's more rather they are too afraid to do anything radical such as controlling Muslim immigration. They'd rather play it safe and get $$ than do what they need to do.

The Lawspeaker
06-11-2011, 03:36 PM
I don't think they are intentionally sabotaging Europe but it's more rather they are too afraid to do anything radical such as controlling Muslim immigration. They'd rather play it safe and get $$ than do what they need to do.
Nah...if that's so then they wouldn't deal so harshly with people that criticise the way things are going. This is deliberate.

poiuytrewq0987
06-11-2011, 03:38 PM
Nah...if that's so then they wouldn't deal so harshly with people that criticise the way things are going. This is deliberate.

They maintain the status quo and make sure no one will try to endanger it. They only do it because they are too sackless to do anything to challenge the status quo.

Aces High
06-11-2011, 03:51 PM
We foil hundreds of terrorist attacks every year all over Europe.

I thought that the target audience of self lobotomised morons that Fox news et al were aiming at never really existed.....you have proved me wrong.

poiuytrewq0987
06-11-2011, 03:54 PM
I thought that the target audience of self lobotomised morons that Fox news et al were aiming at never really existed.....you have proved me wrong.

Maybe it is you who is lobotomised.

This one (http://strata-sphere.com/blog/index.php/archives/4363) is only one example out of many. But hey, I suppose it's easier to stick your head in the sand.

The Lawspeaker
06-11-2011, 03:54 PM
We foil hundreds of terrorist attacks every year all over Europe.
Or so they say..
It's a case of "pretending to stop the big crimes while the rapes, the burglaries, the sexual slave trade, drug-trade and the abuse slip through the net."

Aces High
06-11-2011, 03:57 PM
Maybe it is you who is lobotomised.


So out of the hundreds of terrorist attacks the security forces stop every year here in Europe,name me a hundred.Times dates etc etc.
Just a hundred out of the hundreds every year.

drums fingers....:rolleyes:

poiuytrewq0987
06-11-2011, 04:02 PM
So out of the hundreds of terrorist attacks the security forces stop every year here in Europe,name me a hundred.Times dates etc etc.
Just a hundred out of the hundreds every year.

drums fingers....:rolleyes:

I don't keep track of them but yeah, enjoy sticking your head in the sand. You are pretty dumb for an "Englishman" with kindergarten-level grammar, lol.

Joe McCarthy
06-11-2011, 04:02 PM
Maybe it is you who is lobotomised.

This one (http://strata-sphere.com/blog/index.php/archives/4363) is only one example out of many. But hey, I suppose it's easier to stick your head in the sand.

It's all a Jewish plot via NATO on orders from Rasmussen himself. He's determined to make up the unbelievable yarn that Muslims would try to blow things up because of the heat he took over the Danish cartoon. The Israeli embassy in Copenhagen has overall command. Or something like that.

Aces High
06-11-2011, 04:07 PM
I don't keep track of them .

What.....so what you are saying is you base your beliefs and try to convince others on internet forums like this of your doomsday scenario with facts you make up.....:rotfl:

Who would have thought it..:rolleyes:

poiuytrewq0987
06-11-2011, 04:12 PM
What.....so what you are saying is you base your beliefs and try to convince others on internet forums like this of your doomsday scenario with facts you make up.....:rotfl:

Who would have thought it..:rolleyes:

I hardly outlined a doomsday scenario but rather made a point that Islamics do regularly launch assaults on Europe and have done so for centuries. The only reason there aren't much assaults as before is because we stopped them in their tracks with the invasion of Afghanistan which was once the hotbed of terrorism (in the definition of rogue players assaulting Europe only because we don't adhere to their religion). Now they're largely relegated to Pakistan trying to retake Afghanistan but that will never happen as long we continue to have a presence there.

Aces High
06-11-2011, 04:20 PM
Islamics do regularly launch assaults on Europe

You said hundreds a year,so name me a hundred.

Aces High
06-11-2011, 04:48 PM
did he died...?.......:noidea:

poiuytrewq0987
06-11-2011, 06:37 PM
No, still very much alive. I just don't see how discussing the issue with you could be productive.

Aces High
06-11-2011, 07:36 PM
By giving me the facts of the statement you wrote.Being European i think i have a vested interest in muslims making hundreds of attacks within Europe every year.
Maybe you know something we dont and can teach us by pointing out the facts and sources of your information.

I mean i cant imagine someone as intelligent and well informed as you blindly making wild statements that have no factual basis.:rolleyes:

ikki
06-11-2011, 07:59 PM
By 2050 Russia will have the sixth largest economy in the world - larger than Germany and much larger than Pakistan. That will provide it with plenty of resources to bully countries like yours, or even possibly reabsorb it as Dugin has proposed.

nonsense. They are dying out atm. And their economy is a joke. Selling energy will take them only so far (just look at the saudis, not much progress). Still tho, they have nukes and a failed state with nukes is always a terrible danger.

They cannot even manufacture kalashnikovs! Meanwhile the population is becoming islamic. And will likely have a islamic majority by that magical year of yours.. 2050. Which will mean a lot of instability and possibly a civil war.

And lets not forget that all the arab countries united, including the oilproducing ones, do not have a economy measuring up t even spains! Muslimness is failure.

Joe McCarthy
06-12-2011, 01:00 AM
nonsense. They are dying out atm. And their economy is a joke. Selling energy will take them only so far (just look at the saudis, not much progress). Still tho, they have nukes and a failed state with nukes is always a terrible danger.

They cannot even manufacture kalashnikovs! Meanwhile the population is becoming islamic. And will likely have a islamic majority by that magical year of yours.. 2050. Which will mean a lot of instability and possibly a civil war.

And lets not forget that all the arab countries united, including the oilproducing ones, do not have a economy measuring up t even spains! Muslimness is failure.

Okay, well in that case I guess you know more about economic forecasts than Goldman Sachs. At any rate, with no US, no NATO, and a Russia in the ascendancy economically, I wouldn't particularly want to be where you are.

Svipdag
06-12-2011, 01:51 AM
NATO outlived its usefulness decades ago. Unfortunately, there is no "sunset clause" in its charter, and so, like many other obsolete agencies, it goes on trying to justify its continued existence.

Joe McCarthy
06-12-2011, 02:25 AM
There is every reason to keep NATO going. The 'keep it simple' answer to international relations which seemingly sees any US action beyond its territorial waters as a provocation is not a serious position, and there is a reason why isolationism has zero support among international relations theorists both in and out of government.

poiuytrewq0987
06-12-2011, 03:18 AM
NATO outlived its usefulness decades ago. Unfortunately, there is no "sunset clause" in its charter, and so, like many other obsolete agencies, it goes on trying to justify its continued existence.

The NATO could be used as a buffer against the rising red dragon but Europe's military is so pathetic the NATO might as well be an one country alliance. :coffee:

Joe McCarthy
06-12-2011, 03:34 AM
As a Western military alliance NATO is no different in essence from the Holy Leagues that fought the Ottomans at Lepanto, Vienna, etc. Its purpose is to provide unity of purpose and collective defense. Indeed, the war against the modern jihadist surge in Afghanistan is fought under NATO auspices. The only addendum I would add is that a Kemalist Turkey that was somewhat Westernized when it was brought in probably needs to be expelled for reasons I won't go into just now.

BeerBaron
06-12-2011, 05:17 AM
The NATO could be used as a buffer against the rising red dragon but Europe's military is so pathetic the NATO might as well be an one country alliance. :coffee:

I agree with that, I haven't followed the war in Libya that much but from what I've heard Europe can't seem to do anything militarily without the USA.

People say that NATO isn't worth anything without the soviets to defend against but with all the muslims moving to Europe and breeding like rabbits and the chinese growing stronger every second a lot of us in our life times will wish the old NATO were alive and kicking.

SwordoftheVistula
06-12-2011, 08:53 AM
Okay, well in that case I guess you know more about economic forecasts than Goldman Sachs

Let's see that report, and see if it's any better than their predictions on the US housing market.


isolationism has zero support among international relations theorists both in and out of government.

In other news, cuts to welfare have zero support amongst poverty rights advocates, cuts to ethanol subsidies have zero support amongst corn farmers, and increased deportations of illegal aliens has zero support amongst immigrant rights advocates.

Saruman
06-12-2011, 09:21 AM
There is every reason to keep NATO going. The 'keep it simple' answer to international relations which seemingly sees any US action beyond its territorial waters ........................

http://images.sodahead.com/polls/001427355/george_soros_puppet_master_xlarge.jpeg

Well NATO is primarily globalist tool these days, won't do much to protect from dangers from within, quite to the contrary! Crucial for NATO's continuing existence is that Turkey stays in the alliance, if Turkey leaves Europeans might break off as well, which would be in our interest for sure.

Joe McCarthy
06-12-2011, 09:59 AM
Let's see that report, and see if it's any better than their predictions on the US housing market.



In other news, cuts to welfare have zero support amongst poverty rights advocates, cuts to ethanol subsidies have zero support amongst corn farmers, and increased deportations of illegal aliens has zero support amongst immigrant rights advocates.

The Goldman Sachs forecast is found in a table in Martin Jacques' 'When China Rules the World'. I'm unsure why you equate IR with make work poverty advocates though. The study of international relations is an academic discipline with the realist school concentrating on issues of power maintenance, security, etc. If they thought hunkering down and hiding maintained (or expanded) American power or protected our security, they'd favor it.

Joe McCarthy
06-12-2011, 10:06 AM
http://images.sodahead.com/polls/001427355/george_soros_puppet_master_xlarge.jpeg

Well NATO is primarily globalist tool these days, won't do much to protect from dangers from within, quite to the contrary! Crucial for NATO's continuing existence is that Turkey stays in the alliance, if Turkey leaves Europeans might break off as well, which would be in our interest for sure.

Since when is an anti-American leftist like Soros symbolic of the NATO alliance? NATO is involved with maintaining Western power and using force when deemed necessary to bolster it. Soros is more like most on this forum - very critical of US foreign policy and even something of a Sinophile that wants to reform the post-war Bretton Woods system to America's detriment.

poiuytrewq0987
06-13-2011, 01:43 AM
Since when is an anti-American leftist like Soros symbolic of the NATO alliance? NATO is involved with maintaining Western power and using force when deemed necessary to bolster it. Soros is more like most on this forum - very critical of US foreign policy and even something of a Sinophile that wants to reform the post-war Bretton Woods system to America's detriment.

Soros wanted control of Kosovo's mineral wealth hence the reason why he backed America and maybe even instigated the conflict so he could take over the mines.

Birka
06-13-2011, 02:35 AM
'War with China' is a fantasy approaching science fiction. The enormous amounts of money being wasted in Afghanistan, and the military in general, is real. Especially since all of China's economy relies on exports to the US.


I think he desperately wants a war with China. Typical war monger.

Does he know that NATO and the UN ultimately owe their existence to the extreme progressive democrat, President Wilson?

poiuytrewq0987
06-13-2011, 02:40 AM
I think he desperately wants a war with China. Typical war monger.

Does he know that NATO and the UN ultimately owe their existence to the extreme progressive democrat, President Wilson?

I'm pretty sure Gates is a sane person, sane enough to realize that a war between China and the US would do no good. It would serve no interest except ruin both countries' economy and possibly make more than half the world radioactive.

Joe McCarthy
06-13-2011, 03:04 AM
I think he desperately wants a war with China. Typical war monger.

Does he know that NATO and the UN ultimately owe their existence to the extreme progressive democrat, President Wilson?

What I want is irrelevant. Elements of the Chinese establishment see war with the US as inevitable, and the proper course of action in cases such as these is not to take a pollyanna approach. Germany and Britain had close trade ties prior to WW1- you see all the good it did... And obviously Wilson had nothing to do with NATO.

poiuytrewq0987
06-13-2011, 04:12 AM
What I want is irrelevant. Elements of the Chinese establishment see war with the US as inevitable, and the proper course of action in cases such as these is not to take a pollyanna approach. Germany and Britain had close trade ties prior to WW1- you see all the good it did... And obviously Wilson had nothing to do with NATO.

No, there won't be an actual war. Another cold war, perhaps but an actual war? No, it'd just lead to a nuclear war and look at how that turned out in the Cold War. :coffee:

Joe McCarthy
06-13-2011, 05:38 AM
No, there won't be an actual war. Another cold war, perhaps but an actual war? No, it'd just lead to a nuclear war and look at how that turned out in the Cold War. :coffee:

Citing the Cold War as precedent for the unlikelihood of war with China is pretty ironic as war between the two powers, including nuclear war, was seen as very likely. As it happened we lucked out and war didn't come.

poiuytrewq0987
06-13-2011, 06:24 AM
Citing the Cold War as precedent for the unlikelihood of war with China is pretty ironic as war between the two powers, including nuclear war, was seen as very likely. As it happened we lucked out and war didn't come.

We lucked out because both sides realized that a nuclear war was unwinnable.

Joe McCarthy
06-13-2011, 06:39 AM
We lucked out because both sides realized that a nuclear war was unwinnable.

The advantage, if you'd call it that, that we have today is the trade ties. The US and USSR led two different blocs with relatively little trade between them. However, the Soviets were never a serious threat to bypass us in economic power, while China is. As China gets stronger it could look for ways to lessen its dependency on us, which it actually is already in unloading their debt holdings, and that will both remove an incentive not to wage war and present a much stronger potential foe than the USSR ever was. Nor can we count on the nuclear deterrent as cyberwarfare technology could make ICBMs inoperable - and China invests heavily on that front.