Grinner
Not fat gutted. Hirsuteness of shoulders TBD.
I hated the whole fecking thing. It was depressing and a foretaste of the shit debates we are going to get.
His whole "plan"...Drumpf wants USAF to have at least 1200 fighter jets!
They have 1700 right now.
- Building an active Army of about 540,000
- Building a Marine Corps based on 36 battalions
- Building a Navy nearing 350 surface ships and submarines
- Building an Air Force of at least 1,200 fighter aircraft
- A new "state-of-the-art" missile defense system
I have a feeling that the actual debates will be a cluster. These two will steamroller the mods.
I think he might actually have a learning disability.
He definitely has ADHD. He doesn't even listen to questions. Just picks out a word and goes on a complete tangent.
I think he might actually have a learning disability.
The harsh reality is, NATO needs American troops in Europe.
Drumpf, that is, not Pogue.
We do. Our military (German) is a joke, and we aren't really willing to change that. Keeping American troops here means it doesn't matter though, as they just defend the status quo, which is fine with most of us.Do we? We need the US in NATO, but we certainly don't need their troops in Germany. Not really, that is. They don't serve any purpose here. They are stationed in Germany to organize logistics for operations in the middle east, which is certainly not something NATO is involved in.
I reckon you should give it a go in 2020.
We do. Our military (German) is a joke, and we aren't really willing to change that. Keeping American troops here means it doesn't matter though, as they just defend the status quo, which is fine with most of us.
The defense spending pledge that NATO members made is 2% of their GDP. Right now I think only 5 out of 28 countries are meeting that number.Although I agree that wie should invest more money into our military
We don't need them in Germany for that, which was my point. Although I agree that wie should invest more money into our military. I really was rather sad that the ruomurs we are interested in the french helicopter carriers they built for Russia didn't turn out to be true. Would've been a nice addition to our new F125 destroyer frigates, which are also build with amphibic operations in mind.
Btw, despite what Mr. Trump says, we already pay a considerable amount of money to the US to back up their troops here.
true. The US, Greece, Poland, Uk and Estonia spend more than 2% of their GDP on the military. Would be great if these countries understand that they waste money and reduce the amount to a more resonable share; just like all the other countries.The defense spending pledge that NATO members made is 2% of their GDP. Right now I think only 5 out of 28 countries are meeting that number.
Well, there's no imminent danger to the status quo, but it really isn't a stretch of mind to think there could be in the next decades. Just imagine the Turkish coup would have worked and brought someone hostile towards Europe to the presidency. What will happen to Russia once Putin is gone? Having the US troops here means we're untouchable... Nato is nothing but a promise without them. While we do pay some of the cost of the troops here, it certainly isn't as much as it would cost us to protect ourselves. We don't have to be thankful for them, in the end they're here to serve their own interests... however we do doubtlessly benefit a lot. I didn't say we should invest more into our military, i'm fine with the way things are currently.
Btw, despite what Mr. Trump says, we already pay a considerable amount of money to the US to back up their troops here.
Well, there's no imminent danger to the status quo, but it really isn't a stretch of mind to think there could be in the next decades. Just imagine the Turkish coup would have worked and brought someone hostile towards Europe to the presidency. What will happen to Russia once Putin is gone? Having the US troops here means we're untouchable... Nato is nothing but a promise without them. While we do pay some of the cost of the troops here, it certainly isn't as much as it would cost us to protect ourselves. We don't have to be thankful for them, in the end they're here to serve their own interests... however we do doubtlessly benefit a lot. I didn't say we should invest more into our military, i'm fine with the way things are currently.
If you want to be in the club, you should pay the pledged membership fee. As it stands, 23 nations are not and are relying on US trip wires to insure their defense.a more resonable share
I agree with US military commanders who stated during the Crimean crisis that a US-less NATO would not be able to defeat its nearest unfriendly major military power (Russia).Europe is also untouchable without the USA
Not really...Defensively, we are perfectly fine
If you want to be in the club, you should pay the pledged membership fee. As it stands, 23 nations are not and are relying on US trip wires to insure their defense.
I agree with US military commanders who stated during the Crimean crisis that a US-less NATO would not be able to defeat its nearest unfriendly major military power (Russia).
Besides that, could any NATO nation other than the US actually unilaterally defeat an enemy of the size and capability of ISIS (much less a conventional force)?
We should just change the pledge to 1 or 0.5%. (I agree that it isn't acceptable to pledge one thing and do another, but there's no natural reason it has to be 2% when all possible adversaries could spend 100% and still spend less in absolute numbers).If you want to be in the club, you should pay the pledged membership fee. As it stands, 23 nations are not and are relying on US trip wires to insure their defense.
The jury's still out on whether the US can. I hope they can, but if they do it will be with the help of Kurds, moderate fractions (Whatever that means these days in Syria) and others.Besides that, could any NATO nation other than the US actually unilaterally defeat an enemy of the size and capability of ISIS (much less a conventional force)?
While that may be true today, it might change. I'm not saying we can't defend ourselves, what i'm saying is we can't defend ourselves alone as well as with the US, and that it would cost a fortune to get close. I for one wouldn't want to pay for that. We've "found" an arrangement that's to our mutual benefit, why would we want to change it?Defensively, we are perfectly fine. Despite the fearmongering and the capabilities shown in Syria and Ukraine, the Russian forces are in no way a match for the european ones. They have a few modern and organized units, but in depth, the Russian military is still underfunded and in desperate need of modernization.
Those aren't "my claims". They are the stated reality of military leaders and foreign policy think thanks. I'm simply relaying the information. "Tough luck" to the Baltic NATO allies should an attack come.Your claims about the Russian military and its comparison to the European ones is absurd and has nothing to do with reality
We currently aren't acting unilaterally. We also aren't using anywhere near our full capability in the fight against ISIS. We've handcuffed ourselves to virtually naval and air assets only.The jury's still out on whether the US can. I hope they can
We could deploy a full 3 combat division corps (almost 200,000 men) to the region should the political powers that be become so inclined, just as we did in Iraq in 2003.
If we are defining defeat as annihilating Isis's forces on the ground in Syria and Iraq, then yes it could.No doubt. Would that defeat ISIS though? I'd wager they'd just move to the next desert nobody cares for.
Before you post stuff like that, please read and understand it before you do.Those aren't "my claims". They are the stated reality of military leaders and foreign policy think thanks. I'm simply relaying the information. "Tough luck" to the Baltic NATO allies should an attack come.
https://www.google.com/amp/foreignp...cs-nato-would-lose-quickly/amp/?client=safari
http://warontherocks.com/2016/04/outnumbered-outranged-and-outgunned-how-russia-defeats-nato/
We currently aren't acting unilaterally. We also aren't using anywhere near our full capability in the fight against ISIS. We've handcuffed ourselves to virtually naval and air assets only.
We could deploy a full 3 combat division corps (almost 200,000 men) to the region should the political powers that be become so inclined, just as we did in Iraq in 2003.
I'd vote Pogue over trump every day of the week.Drumpf, that is, not Pogue.
Before you say things like that, understand I have read and do fully understand it.Before you post stuff like that, please read and understand it before you do.
It's about the situation in the baltics. Nobody doubts that NATO would be unable to defend the baltics. But the problem there is not the fact that our military ins inferior, but that we would have to fight far away from home while they just have to cross the border.
That thing about the M109 is epecially stupid. Yes, the US still relies on it. But nobody else does, european forces rely on the far more capable PzH2000.
The article is nitpicking parts fitting it's agenda.
Well ok, I guess it depends what you define as defeating. To me ISIS isn't akin to a Nation/Country/State (They'd like to be, but they aren't), they're more of a cult. As such there isn't a real victory to be had, you can only aim to push back the cult's ideology, hoping it dies out one day. I don't think they can be truly beaten by conventional military forces. If the US were to do as you propose I fear it would go the same way Afghanistan has been going the last 14 years (Similiar anyway, they're are incomprehensible many influences in both countries that make for different situations, but that would be my fear).If we are defining defeat as annihilating Isis's forces on the ground in Syria and Iraq, then yes it could.
I completely agree that the idea cannot be defeated militarily. I'm simply speaking in terms of eliminating their military forces in Iraq/Syria.Well ok, I guess it depends what you define as defeating. To me ISIS isn't akin to a Nation/Country/State (They'd like to be, but they aren't), they're more of a cult. As such there isn't a real victory to be had, you can only aim to push back the cult's ideology, hoping it dies out one day. I don't think they can be truly beaten by conventional military forces. If the US were to do as you propose I fear it would go the same way Afghanistan has been going the last 14 years (Similiar anyway, they're are incomprehensible many influences in both countries that make for different situations, but that would be my fear).
I think he might actually have a learning disability.
Is he applying Neuro-Linguistic Programming (NLP)? He also seems to insert his slogans unrelated to questions etc.
Gary Johnson - What is Aleppo ?
Gary Johnson - What is Aleppo ?