Bear Pit: now the sole domicile of politics at LuLa

[Alan Klein]

And supply gum and nylon stockings, right?

Whatever it takes. 

[digitaldog]

Off all the drivel and BS on this thread, this is the most despicable. Shame on you!

Pot calls kettle black. Again. 🤮

[LesPalenik]

We have plenty of aircraft carriers that float. In fact, we can't afford those either.    We don't need a forward base.  We have ICBMs to protect ourselves against the Russians.  They're not attacking us anyway.  They're your problem, not ours. NO one becomes reliant on a future enemy by building a gas pipeline to their enemy.  All this is about is America provide arms so local countries can spend their money on social programs rather than tanks.  Let the American taxpayer pay for defense is Europe's slogan.    Certainly, we can scale back.  Frankly, I think American defense planners are more worried about another internecine war among European states than Russia attacking.  At least that's what happened in the 20th Century.  We're just there to stop you guys from fighting among yourselves.

SpaceX invented small floating platforms for landing the rockets. They are much cheaper than the aircraft carriers.

[digitaldog]

SpaceX invented small floating platforms for landing the rockets. They are much cheaper than the aircraft carriers.

And more useful.

[John Camp]

Off all the drivel and BS on this thread, this is the most despicable. Shame on you!

You must not have read major parts of this thread.

[Jim Pascoe]

We have plenty of aircraft carriers that float.  In fact, we can't afford those either.    We don't need a forward base.  We have ICBMs to protect ourselves against the Russians.  They're not attacking us anyway.  They're your problem, not ours. NO one becomes reliant on a future enemy by building a gas pipeline to their enemy.  All this is about is America provide arms so local countries can spend their money on social programs rather than tanks.  Let the American taxpayer pay for defense is Europe's slogan.    Certainly, we can scale back.  Frankly, I think American defense planners are more worried about another internecine war among European states than Russia attacking.  At least that's what happened in the 20th Century.  We're just there to stop you guys from fighting among yourselves.

I think the point was that the UK was seen as an ‘unsinkable aircraft carrier’. In any case I think your understanding of international politics regarding both economic and military concerns is very limited. Mine is too, but I try to avoid spouting off about subjects I’m no expert in. Alan, you make the most ridiculous statements I find it odd that so many intelligent people here even bother to debate with you. I’m sure you’re a perfectly nice guy in reality though.
Jim

[Alan Klein]

I think the point was that the UK was seen as an ‘unsinkable aircraft carrier’. In any case I think your understanding of international politics regarding both economic and military concerns is very limited. Mine is too, but I try to avoid spouting off about subjects I’m no expert in. Alan, you make the most ridiculous statements I find it odd that so many intelligent people here even bother to debate with you. I’m sure you’re a perfectly nice guy in reality though.
Jim

Rather than counter my opinions, you resort to insults.  If you don't understand enough to debate me, maybe you should stay silent and let other smarter people respond.  In any case, it seems strange that a Brit who just pulled a Brexit would argue that America should not back out out of unappreciated and expensive commitments with the same nations you just tossed overboard.

[jeremyrh]

Rather than counter my opinions, you resort to insults.  If you don't understand enough to debate me, maybe you should stay silent and let other smarter people respond.  In any case, it seems strange that a Brit who just pulled a Brexit would argue that America should not back out out of unappreciated and expensive commitments with the same nations you just tossed overboard.

If you think I support Brexit in any shape or form, you're more seriously deluded than we had imagined.  It's a collossal act of national self-harm pushed through by liars and charlatans using techniques copied directly from the Trump playbook. The US got rid of Trump after 4 years; we will be stuck with Brexit for decades.

As Jim pointed out, but you were not smart enough to understand, the UK was seen as an unsinkable aircraft carrier that could accommodate strategic bombers. The US was reluctant to rely on ICBMs because they would invite retaliation to US targets - much better to have a "limited nuclear war" in Europe using "tactical" nukes. As we said at the time - "Limited nuclear war means 'limited to us' "

[Alan Klein]

If you think I support Brexit in any shape or form, you're more seriously deluded than we had imagined.  It's a collossal act of national self-harm pushed through by liars and charlatans using techniques copied directly from the Trump playbook. The US got rid of Trump after 4 years; we will be stuck with Brexit for decades.

As Jim pointed out, but you were not smart enough to understand, the UK was seen as an unsinkable aircraft carrier that could accommodate strategic bombers. The US was reluctant to rely on ICBMs because they would invite retaliation to US targets - much better to have a "limited nuclear war" in Europe using "tactical" nukes. As we said at the time - "Limited nuclear war means 'limited to us' "

You and Jim aren't American.  For you to commit American blood and treasure as you see fit is impolite, to say the least.  You should be thankful for whatever support we provide to protect you.  We've been doing it for so long you expect it as a right.  Well, it isn't a right.   You don't bleed for us or pay our taxes.  Additionally, I don't see Russia as a threat to us or frankly to Europe either.  China's the threat. That's the main point.

Why do we need 33,000 American troops in Germany, 9000 in GB and another 20,000 more spread around Europe.  Meanwhile, Germany is building a pipeline to Russia it feels so threatened by it.  Why don't they buy the fuel from us?  Why aren't they keeping their commitments for defense expenditures?   Frankly, we cannot afford it any longer. Certainly, we should be able to cut some troops.  Why doesn't GB and Germany call up more of your own troops to serve and raise your own taxes to pay for it? I'm sure Biden would be just as happy as Trump was to sell you some of our finest jets to fly from your unsinkable aircraft carrier.

[Chris Kern]

. . . the UK was seen as an unsinkable aircraft carrier that could accommodate strategic bombers. The US was reluctant to rely on ICBMs because they would invite retaliation to US targets - much better to have a "limited nuclear war" in Europe using "tactical" nukes.

Actually, the deployment of U.S. forward operating bases in the U.K. and continental Europe was intended to make clear to the government of the Soviet Union the seriousness of the NATO mutual defense provisions and the determination of the United States to honor its treaty obligation to defend Europe as it would its own territory.  Since the collapse of the Soviet Union, every U.S. president has attempted to scale back this deployment.  (Obama had second thoughts after the Russian land grab in Crimea and Trump's attempt to remove troops from Germany was blocked by Congress.)

In addition to the doctrine's strategic purpose, the bomber deployment had a particular historical basis.  It took the better part of a year after Pearl Harbor for the United States to make a significant contribution to the bombing campaign against German invasion forces in occupied Europe.  Generals famously always fight the last war and after World War II, there was a strong determination in Washington to be prepared to respond quickly to any territorial threat to U.S. allies.

[Alan Klein]

Actually, the deployment of U.S. forward operating bases in the U.K. and continental Europe was intended to make clear to the government of the Soviet Union the seriousness of the NATO mutual defense provisions and the determination of the United States to honor its treaty obligation to defend Europe as it would its own territory.  Since the collapse of the Soviet Union, every U.S. president has attempted to scale back this deployment.  (Obama had second thoughts after the Russian land grab in Crimea and Trump's attempt to remove troops from Germany was blocked by Congress.)

In addition to the doctrine's strategic purpose, the bomber deployment had a particular historical basis. It took the better part of a year after Pearl Harbor for the United States to make a significant contribution to the bombing campaign against German invasion forces in occupied Europe.  Generals famously always fight the last war and after World War II, there was a strong determination in Washington to be prepared to respond quickly to any territorial threat to U.S. allies.

Americans after WWI had taken a less military stance in foreign relations and at home.  Americans didn't want to get involved in another war "over there".   Our military shrunk a lot. There was huge opposition to FDR regarding Lend Lease and other foreign war support prior to the war.  Americans wanted to be left alone.  We were suffering through the Depression.

When the Japanese attacked Pearl Harbor, we declared war only on the Japanese.  The reason we went to war with Germany was that Hitler was the one who declared war on us three days after Pearl Harbor.  It probably would have happened anyway.  But it just shows how hesitant Americans were to get involved in Europe again. 

As our economy shrinks and our debts increase, I think there's going to be a lot of push to reduce our military commitments around the world.  We cannot afford guns and butter any longer, at least not to the extent we've been in the past.

[Alan Klein]

Liberal leftist CNN comes out against corporate tax hikes in opposition to Biden.  When it comes to corporate profits, even CNN knows where their bread is buttered.

Why Janet Yellen is wrong on corporate tax rates
Opinion by Daniel Bunn and Scott A. Hodge for CNN Business Perspectives
https://www.cnn.com/2021/03/26/perspectives/janet-yellen-minimum-global-tax-rate/index.html

[Robert Roaldi]

You and Jim aren't American.  For you to commit American blood and treasure as you see fit is impolite, to say the least.  You should be thankful for whatever support we provide to protect you.  We've been doing it for so long you expect it as a right.  Well, it isn't a right.   You don't bleed for us or pay our taxes.  Additionally, I don't see Russia as a threat to us or frankly to Europe either.  China's the threat. That's the main point.

No one expects it as a right. That's absurd. If you're there, it's because it suits YOU to be there. Or did, maybe not so much anymore.

Why is China a threat? And to whom? If so, why does the US trade so much with them? Are you selling them arms? The US has a long history of installing and supporting despots, is this a case of that?

This is bullshit bar talk. If you mean that China companies are strong competitors around the world, welcome to the "free market". If you want to do better than them, then do better than them. If you mean that China is a military threat, I'd have to ask wtf are you talking about? If any country on the planet can be accused of military expansion, it's the US. Why DO you have 700 military bases?

You think Putin is a reliable ally in a "struggle" against China but that Germany, France, EU, etc. are not? Are you out of your mind.

Why do we need 33,000 American troops in Germany, 9000 in GB and another 20,000 more spread around Europe.  Meanwhile, Germany is building a pipeline to Russia it feels so threatened by it.  Why don't they buy the fuel from us?  Why aren't they keeping their commitments for defense expenditures?   Frankly, we cannot afford it any longer. Certainly, we should be able to cut some troops.  Why doesn't GB and Germany call up more of your own troops to serve and raise your own taxes to pay for it? I'm sure Biden would be just as happy as Trump was to sell you some of our finest jets to fly from your unsinkable aircraft carrier.

I don't know, why do you have 33,000 troops in Germany? Why DO you have over 700 military bases around the globe? If you're broke, as you say, then you should close some of them. Or get Apple and Amazon to pay some taxes for a change.

Lots of countries were engaged in trade with Germany before WW2, not sure that means anthing. If Russia is selling natural gas, then of course the countries nearby will buy it. Do you think they should not?

How do you know that Germany is not keeping their military commitments, are you making that up? Sorry, but you have been factually wrong on almost everything that it's not possible to take anything you say at face value.

if you can't afford to stay there, then leave, there are probably lots of people who would be happy about that. They should pay for their own defence.

[Alan Klein]

No one expects it as a right. That's absurd. If you're there, it's because it suits YOU to be there. Or did, maybe not so much anymore.

Why is China a threat? And to whom? If so, why does the US trade so much with them? Are you selling them arms? The US has a long history of installing and supporting despots, is this a case of that?

This is bullshit bar talk. If you mean that China companies are strong competitors around the world, welcome to the "free market". If you want to do better than them, then do better than them. If you mean that China is a military threat, I'd have to ask wtf are you talking about? If any country on the planet can be accused of military expansion, it's the US. Why DO you have 700 military bases?

You think Putin is a reliable ally in a "struggle" against China but that Germany, France, EU, etc. are not? Are you out of your mind.


I don't know, why do you have 33,000 troops in Germany? Why DO you have over 700 military bases around the globe? If you're broke, as you say, then you should close some of them. Or get Apple and Amazon to pay some taxes for a change.

Lots of countries were engaged in trade with Germany before WW2, not sure that means anthing. If Russia is selling natural gas, then of course the countries nearby will buy it. Do you think they should not?

How do you know that Germany is not keeping their military commitments, are you making that up? Sorry, but you have been factually wrong on almost everything that it's not possible to take anything you say at face value.

if you can't afford to stay there, then leave, there are probably lots of people who would be happy about that. They should pay for their own defence.

I can't figure out if you agree or disagree with me.

[jeremyrh]

You and Jim aren't American.  For you to commit American blood and treasure as you see fit is impolite, to say the least.

Luckily neither of us are doing that, so your whole argument is false. For my part I am simply pointing out that US forces are in Europe for US purposes.

[Alan Klein]

Luckily neither of us are doing that, so your whole argument is false. For my part I am simply pointing out that US forces are in Europe for US purposes.

Well,  we went there originally to prevent the Soviets from overrunning western Europe to make them Communists.  Now,  we should pull out and let the Russians return them to Capitalism.

[jeremyrh]

Well,  we went there originally to prevent the Soviets from overrunning western Europe to make them Communists.  Now,  we should pull out and let the Russians return them to Capitalism.

Alan, you're rambling again. Have you forgotten your meds today?

[TechTalk]

Russia could be our ally for that as a nuclear power and being located along China's northern border.  Instead, because of the stupid domestic politics in the USA against Trump for five years, we've driven them to be friends with China.  Now, how dumb is that?

China, Russia officials meet in show of unity against EU, US
China and Russia... have built a strong relationship in recent years based on opposition to the U.S.-led liberal order, as well as cooperation in military affairs, technology and trade in natural resources.

Many years would actually be more accurate.

wouldn't it be better if we were having military exercises with the Russians rather they with China?

Economic and military ties between Russia and China have been growing for many years and across four administrations. Both nations have a common desire to resist democratic movements internally and a common interest in undermining trust in democratic ideals, nations, and alliances in order to retain power and expand their individual spheres of influence. Russia and China have been engaging in joint military exercises since 2005. The largest ever participation of China in Russian military exercises came in 2018 (VOSTOK 2018) as a result of Trump's boastful bully rhetoric that China would buckle to his pressure which pushed them even closer toward Russia.

The notion that their common economic, military, and political interests are "because of the stupid domestic politics in the USA against Trump" is not based in fact or reality. It is pure unbridled fantasy and delusion and appears to be similar to Trump's view that the world revolves around himself. It doesn't.

The National Institute for Defense Studies News, September 2005

First Ever Sino-Russian Joint Military Exercises - Russia Rapidly Moving Closer to China

From August 18 to 25, 2005, China and Russia engaged in the first large-scale joint military exercises in their history. The military exercises were announced near the end of 2004. Officially implemented within the framework of the Shanghai Cooperation Organization (SCO), it demonstrates that a new stage has been reached in the military cooperative relationship between China and Russia.

As can be seen from this joint military exercise, Russia is rapidly moving closer to China. The reasons for this are, first, acquisition of economic benefits due to stronger exports of energy and weapons. In late-2004, the Russian government needed to make a decision regarding construction of an oil pipeline extending from an East Siberian oil field, and at that time opted to place priority on construction of the Pacific route recommended by the Japanese. Entering 2005, however, the mood switched to placing more priority on export of oil to its China neighbor, where high demand for energy is forecast, and a long-term energy cooperation agreement was signed at a Sino-Russian summit meeting in July 2005.

Another element is China’s policy of trying to put restraints on the United States, a stance that Russia is beginning to fall into line with. ... The background to this stronger Russian stance of putting restraints on the United States includes: (1) NATO membership for the three Baltic countries, the long-term presence of US forces in Central Asia, and the distancing of Central Asian countries from Russia in the course of a series of democratic revolutions [and revolutions in Georgia and Ukraine in 2003-2004 seeking closer ties to Europe and NATO] is resulting in a major deterioration of Russia’s strategic environment; and (2) differences of opinion in regards to Russia’s retreat from its own democratization is causing a cooling of US-Russia cooperation efforts that had been built up since the events of September 11, 2001.

Both China and Russia see stronger military cooperation as a way to expand their influence on surrounding regions.

What's the expression?-  the enemy of my enemy is my friend.

[TechTalk]

We don't need a forward base.

A forward base is one piece of having a forward line of defense. The further forward your line of defense is placed, the greater the depth you have to defend what you wish to protect. In the case of the U.S., that line of defense relies heavily upon our forces and those of our democratic allies in NATO. The idea that the U.S. is isolated and protected by oceans and distance has long since passed.

We have ICBMs to protect ourselves against the Russians.

There's the worst idea imaginable. By that strategic logic, we don't need a massive defense budget, or army, or navy, or air force. Those same missiles also work against any other nation. When trouble's afoot, just send in Duke Nukem and vaporize 'em into eternity. By the way, the last country on the face of the earth we would ever want to have a nuclear exchange with is Russia!

https://www.statista.com/statistics/number-of-nuclear-warheads-worldwide

Frankly, I think American defense planners are more worried about another internecine war among European states than Russia attacking.  At least that's what happened in the 20th Century.  We're just there to stop you guys from fighting among yourselves.

Really?

[John Camp]

Luckily neither of us are doing that, so your whole argument is false. For my part I am simply pointing out that US forces are in Europe for US purposes.

I would say they are in Europe for both our purposes.