|
Read the rules in the OP before posting, please.In order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a re-read to refresh your memory! The vast majority of you are contributing in a healthy way, keep it up! NOTE: When providing a source, explain why you feel it is relevant and what purpose it adds to the discussion if it's not obvious. Also take note that unsubstantiated tweets/posts meant only to rekindle old arguments can result in a mod action. |
|
|
On August 09 2017 07:29 m4ini wrote:
So he's arguing a strawman then. Because as far as i can tell, barely anyone (if actually anyone) argues for a nuclear first strike. Many actually said that it shouldn't be an option in the first place.
If no one is arguing a first strike then what is this discussion about?
If NK strikes first you retaliate 100%, no one is going to deny that.
So what is this discussion about?
I came in late so I might just have totally misread what was going on.
|
On August 09 2017 07:14 ZerOCoolSC2 wrote:Show nested quote +On August 09 2017 07:09 Gorsameth wrote:On August 09 2017 07:03 ZerOCoolSC2 wrote:
While I'm worried about Japan, we've got them covered. I would think they have their own way of dealing with NK if it comes down to it. I'm more worried that SK would get bypassed as an effort to appease China if it goes any further. We have a large contingent in Japan already and more in SK. I think we could probably walk through NK within a year if we were determined to wipe the country out. China would bitch and moan, send some weapons in to "defend" but at the end of the day, they wouldn't want to be on the same side of NK.
Arming the world with nukes is obviously not the way to go. Iran doesn't have them (if our inspectors are to be believed) and I doubt they want more sanctions hurting them. The ayatollah is the biggest problem in Iran, since he has so much power. If the government was the one and the ayatollah was simply a figurehead like the emperor of japan or the queen, then we could have a more civilized discussion with them.
NK is a threat because they are unpredictable.
tl;dr China won't move if we invade. It's against their economic interests to back NK if they go off the rails against SK, Japan, or the US. Seoul is leveled by artillery and missiles fly wherever they can get them, possibly with nuclear warheads. How the hell is invading NK an option? Yes, the US military can beat NK, no shit. Imo the best bet is still basic MAD principle. The moment NK actually strikes they are removed from the map so its in their best interest to not do so. We had that same mindset when we went into Afghanistan and Iraq. Turned out quite nicely for us, wouldn't you say. Note I said if we wanted to wipe them out. If NK is aggressive in starting a conflict and we send in our military along with Seoul, China isn't going to intervene. They would lose too much economically. It's in their best interests to get NK to step down. If they did go to war, China would be best served severing all ties and help SK as a new avenue for economic potential.
We were correct in thinking that in Afghanistan and Iraq. both "wars" lasted less then it took to get there and neither country offered any real resistance. NK is on the same tech level and would act in the soviet pattern docterine that the US military is built to go against. Wars like that don't exist when there are nukes on the field but we'd do just fine going against a WW2 army with out hyperwar army.
China would go to war if we went to war in NK the whole reason why they intervied in the first place is because they didn't trust the US having a land border into the relevant part of their nation. Ever sense nixon went to china its just been an akward dance of "well we don't have any other friends and we still don't want you to have a land border with us to the relevent part of the nation. China sees NK as its buffer state between it and the United states. That hasn't changed.
|
On August 09 2017 07:34 m4ini wrote:Show nested quote +On August 09 2017 07:31 Gorsameth wrote:On August 09 2017 07:24 m4ini wrote:On August 09 2017 07:20 Gorsameth wrote:On August 09 2017 07:18 m4ini wrote:
an unstable nuclear power
While you might be okay with that, others certainly are not. I would love for NK to not have nukes. But they have em and that changes the entire situation and how you deal with it. I'm not willing to sacrifice millions on the possibility that they might do something bad. The sacrificing millions might also happen because you don't do anything. I do agree that there is no good course of action here, but just letting NK do as they please will not lead to "nothing". I just don't understand how people (you too btw) constantly argue how dangerous it is that Trump has "the button", but somehow NK is not really scary, they're just posing, they just want to be left alone (ignoring that they're already in a conflict), they would never, they don't intend to, etc. Maybe i'm missing a link here somewhere, care to explain? This is so off base from what I've been stating these last few pages I don't even known how to respond. Know I know how xDaunt feels. Suffice to say picking unneccesay fights with nuclear powers is really bad and should be avoided at all costs.
Right. Except that's quite literally what you implied. NK wants nukes to be left alone, now what does Japan do that constantly get threatened by ICBMs falling into their waters? Just answer that. Without saying "well NK wouldn't nuke them" since it's bullshit, nobody would've nuked NK either, so nukes as MAD were pointless. I'm curious. Because I believe NK is well aware of their position and what happens if they step to far, tho what is 'to far' is grey area (see shooting at SK islands). Trump on the other hand might be stupid enough to think he could throw a nuke and get away with it. See his comments during his first security briefings asking 'why don't we use nukes if we have them'. And NK doesn't want nukes to protect themselves from getting nuked. They want them to deter a convention war. (see Ukraine) Erm, deter a conventional war that they're constantly fueling? But i'll bite. What makes you think that NK/Kim is well aware of his position and not actually insane? I do understand and agree that Trump is a moron of monumental proportions, but to argue that Kim somehow is smarter, seems like a stretch and certainly would need some form of "evidence" (not like medical records, but points where he seemed reasonable). Wat.
Spy sats. Spy planes. Whatever you want to call it. You know they're being watched carefully. You know what I'm saying >
|
On August 09 2017 07:34 Gorsameth wrote:Show nested quote +On August 09 2017 07:29 m4ini wrote:
So he's arguing a strawman then. Because as far as i can tell, barely anyone (if actually anyone) argues for a nuclear first strike. Many actually said that it shouldn't be an option in the first place. If no one is arguing a first strike then what is this discussion about? If NK strikes first you retaliate 100%, no one is going to deny that. So what is this discussion about? I came in late so I might just have totally misread what was going on.
I don't know, possible ways to prevent millions from dying through a possible NK first strike?
Spy sats. Spy planes. Whatever you want to call it. You know they're being watched carefully. You know what I'm saying >
I do, but i also have a broad idea as to how those things work (not in detail, but some).
There's no real time life feed in 1080p.
|
On August 09 2017 07:24 m4ini wrote:
Right. Except that's quite literally what you implied. NK wants nukes to be left alone, now what does Japan do that constantly get threatened by ICBMs falling into their waters? Just answer that. Without saying "well NK wouldn't nuke them" since it's bullshit, nobody would've nuked NK either, so nukes as MAD were pointless.
I'm curious.
Japan relies on countries like the US, Britain, and France. This is why people make allies and join groups like NATO. Our anti-missle and deterrence bubbles cover more than our own borders. I am a big proponent of limiting the number of nukes on this planet. Going to war is the worst way to accomplish that.
|
Sebastian Gorka, a White House national security adviser, defended President Donald Trump’s silence on an explosion at a Minnesota mosque by suggesting it could have been a fake hate crime “propagated by the left.”
When asked on MSNBC Tuesday why Trump had yet to publicly comment on the Saturday incident, Gorka said the president wants to wait until he learns more about it. Trump, though, often is quick to comment on other attacks, particularly those carried out by Muslims.
“When we have some kind of finalized investigation, absolutely,” Gorka said of whether Trump would respond to the bombing at the Dar al-Farooq Islamic Center in Bloomington. He then suggested the attack could have been a “fake” hate crime.
www.yahoo.com
|
On August 09 2017 07:33 Mohdoo wrote:Show nested quote +On August 09 2017 07:15 Gorsameth wrote:On August 09 2017 07:12 Mohdoo wrote:On August 09 2017 07:11 a_flayer wrote:On August 09 2017 07:09 Mohdoo wrote:On August 09 2017 07:07 a_flayer wrote:
Some of you people are crazy radicalized warmongers with your views on the NK "problem". The type of thinking you are portraying operates under the assumption that tragic, horrible things could never actually happen. Tragic horrible things are almost guaranteed to happen when you start invading countries as a form of "defense". What about pearl harbor? what about it? When NK attacks you strike back and no one will blame you for it. But a pre-emptive first strike against an unstable nuclear power who can also wipe out your big ally's capital in the region with conventional artillery is insane. This discussion is a bunch of keyboard warriors talking about how several million dead are acceptable because NK might possible at some point in time potentially get rowdy. How many do you think would die if nk nuked LA?
How many would have died if the USSR launched from Cuba?
Good thing your logic didn't prevail back then or the human race might well have stopped existing.
|
“I genuinely believe that if Trump wins and gets the nuclear codes there is an excellent possibility it will lead to the end of civilization.”
If he were writing “The Art of the Deal” today, Schwartz said, it would be a very different book with a very different title. Asked what he would call it, he answered, “The Sociopath.”
www.newyorker.com
|
On August 09 2017 07:35 Sermokala wrote:Show nested quote +On August 09 2017 07:14 ZerOCoolSC2 wrote:On August 09 2017 07:09 Gorsameth wrote:On August 09 2017 07:03 ZerOCoolSC2 wrote:
While I'm worried about Japan, we've got them covered. I would think they have their own way of dealing with NK if it comes down to it. I'm more worried that SK would get bypassed as an effort to appease China if it goes any further. We have a large contingent in Japan already and more in SK. I think we could probably walk through NK within a year if we were determined to wipe the country out. China would bitch and moan, send some weapons in to "defend" but at the end of the day, they wouldn't want to be on the same side of NK.
Arming the world with nukes is obviously not the way to go. Iran doesn't have them (if our inspectors are to be believed) and I doubt they want more sanctions hurting them. The ayatollah is the biggest problem in Iran, since he has so much power. If the government was the one and the ayatollah was simply a figurehead like the emperor of japan or the queen, then we could have a more civilized discussion with them.
NK is a threat because they are unpredictable.
tl;dr China won't move if we invade. It's against their economic interests to back NK if they go off the rails against SK, Japan, or the US. Seoul is leveled by artillery and missiles fly wherever they can get them, possibly with nuclear warheads. How the hell is invading NK an option? Yes, the US military can beat NK, no shit. Imo the best bet is still basic MAD principle. The moment NK actually strikes they are removed from the map so its in their best interest to not do so. We had that same mindset when we went into Afghanistan and Iraq. Turned out quite nicely for us, wouldn't you say. Note I said if we wanted to wipe them out. If NK is aggressive in starting a conflict and we send in our military along with Seoul, China isn't going to intervene. They would lose too much economically. It's in their best interests to get NK to step down. If they did go to war, China would be best served severing all ties and help SK as a new avenue for economic potential. We were correct in thinking that in Afghanistan and Iraq. both "wars" lasted less then it took to get there and neither country offered any real resistance. NK is on the same tech level and would act in the soviet pattern docterine that the US military is built to go against. Wars like that don't exist when there are nukes on the field but we'd do just fine going against a WW2 army with out hyperwar army. China would go to war if we went to war in NK the whole reason why they intervied in the first place is because they didn't trust the US having a land border into the relevant part of their nation. Ever sense nixon went to china its just been an akward dance of "well we don't have any other friends and we still don't want you to have a land border with us to the relevent part of the nation. China sees NK as its buffer state between it and the United states. That hasn't changed.
All we did was topple the government and insert our own moderate puppets. Then we stayed for how long? 10 years? The "war" was over, but we still had to fight resistance. I'm talking scorched earth policy here.
|
On August 09 2017 07:37 Doodsmack wrote:Show nested quote +Sebastian Gorka, a White House national security adviser, defended President Donald Trump’s silence on an explosion at a Minnesota mosque by suggesting it could have been a fake hate crime “propagated by the left.”
When asked on MSNBC Tuesday why Trump had yet to publicly comment on the Saturday incident, Gorka said the president wants to wait until he learns more about it. Trump, though, often is quick to comment on other attacks, particularly those carried out by Muslims.
“When we have some kind of finalized investigation, absolutely,” Gorka said of whether Trump would respond to the bombing at the Dar al-Farooq Islamic Center in Bloomington. He then suggested the attack could have been a “fake” hate crime. www.yahoo.com
Fucking disgraceful, the embarrassments just keep on piling up.
|
On August 09 2017 07:36 m4ini wrote:Show nested quote +On August 09 2017 07:34 Gorsameth wrote:On August 09 2017 07:29 m4ini wrote:
So he's arguing a strawman then. Because as far as i can tell, barely anyone (if actually anyone) argues for a nuclear first strike. Many actually said that it shouldn't be an option in the first place. If no one is arguing a first strike then what is this discussion about? If NK strikes first you retaliate 100%, no one is going to deny that. So what is this discussion about? I came in late so I might just have totally misread what was going on. I don't know, possible ways to prevent millions from dying through a possible NK first strike? Show nested quote +
Spy sats. Spy planes. Whatever you want to call it. You know they're being watched carefully. You know what I'm saying >
I do, but i also have a broad idea as to how those things work (not in detail, but some). There's no real time life feed in 1080p.
If an acceptable possibility existed of taking out NK without millions dying (not even counting NK citizens) it would have been used a while ago.
Sometimes there is no good answer but sit back and hope things work out while preparing for the worst.
|
On August 09 2017 07:37 On_Slaught wrote:Show nested quote +On August 09 2017 07:24 m4ini wrote:
Right. Except that's quite literally what you implied. NK wants nukes to be left alone, now what does Japan do that constantly get threatened by ICBMs falling into their waters? Just answer that. Without saying "well NK wouldn't nuke them" since it's bullshit, nobody would've nuked NK either, so nukes as MAD were pointless.
I'm curious. Japan relies on countries like the US, Britain, and France. This is why people make allies and join groups like NATO. Our anti-missle and deterrence bubbles cover more than our own borders. I am a big proponent of limiting the number of nukes on this planet. Going to war is the worst way to accomplish that.
Japan doesn't have a mutual defense agreement with Britain and France. Japan does have one with the US, a country that ignored a similar treaty with ukraine, so take that as you will.
Japan relies on other countries because it has to, it's like arguing that NK could've relied on chinas nukes. It's bs.
If an acceptable possibility existed of taking out NK without millions dying (not even counting NK citizens) it would have been used a while ago.
Actually, no. There were possibilities, but they were ignored. Or rather, for example, Bush was hopeful that NK comes to its senses. Before nukes, there was no possibility of millions dying (other than for example china stopping food going to NK).
|
On August 09 2017 07:39 ZerOCoolSC2 wrote:Show nested quote +On August 09 2017 07:35 Sermokala wrote:On August 09 2017 07:14 ZerOCoolSC2 wrote:On August 09 2017 07:09 Gorsameth wrote:On August 09 2017 07:03 ZerOCoolSC2 wrote:
While I'm worried about Japan, we've got them covered. I would think they have their own way of dealing with NK if it comes down to it. I'm more worried that SK would get bypassed as an effort to appease China if it goes any further. We have a large contingent in Japan already and more in SK. I think we could probably walk through NK within a year if we were determined to wipe the country out. China would bitch and moan, send some weapons in to "defend" but at the end of the day, they wouldn't want to be on the same side of NK.
Arming the world with nukes is obviously not the way to go. Iran doesn't have them (if our inspectors are to be believed) and I doubt they want more sanctions hurting them. The ayatollah is the biggest problem in Iran, since he has so much power. If the government was the one and the ayatollah was simply a figurehead like the emperor of japan or the queen, then we could have a more civilized discussion with them.
NK is a threat because they are unpredictable.
tl;dr China won't move if we invade. It's against their economic interests to back NK if they go off the rails against SK, Japan, or the US. Seoul is leveled by artillery and missiles fly wherever they can get them, possibly with nuclear warheads. How the hell is invading NK an option? Yes, the US military can beat NK, no shit. Imo the best bet is still basic MAD principle. The moment NK actually strikes they are removed from the map so its in their best interest to not do so. We had that same mindset when we went into Afghanistan and Iraq. Turned out quite nicely for us, wouldn't you say. Note I said if we wanted to wipe them out. If NK is aggressive in starting a conflict and we send in our military along with Seoul, China isn't going to intervene. They would lose too much economically. It's in their best interests to get NK to step down. If they did go to war, China would be best served severing all ties and help SK as a new avenue for economic potential. We were correct in thinking that in Afghanistan and Iraq. both "wars" lasted less then it took to get there and neither country offered any real resistance. NK is on the same tech level and would act in the soviet pattern docterine that the US military is built to go against. Wars like that don't exist when there are nukes on the field but we'd do just fine going against a WW2 army with out hyperwar army. China would go to war if we went to war in NK the whole reason why they intervied in the first place is because they didn't trust the US having a land border into the relevant part of their nation. Ever sense nixon went to china its just been an akward dance of "well we don't have any other friends and we still don't want you to have a land border with us to the relevent part of the nation. China sees NK as its buffer state between it and the United states. That hasn't changed. All we did was topple the government and insert our own moderate puppets. Then we stayed for how long? 10 years? The "war" was over, but we still had to fight resistance. I'm talking scorched earth policy here.
But in this case they would act like an enemy force from WW2. They would believe their dear leader is a god until he is dead. Their army would fight in the field until they break and then surrender. We still haven't left japan or Germany after WW2.
|
On August 09 2017 07:41 Gorsameth wrote:Show nested quote +On August 09 2017 07:36 m4ini wrote:On August 09 2017 07:34 Gorsameth wrote:On August 09 2017 07:29 m4ini wrote:
So he's arguing a strawman then. Because as far as i can tell, barely anyone (if actually anyone) argues for a nuclear first strike. Many actually said that it shouldn't be an option in the first place. If no one is arguing a first strike then what is this discussion about? If NK strikes first you retaliate 100%, no one is going to deny that. So what is this discussion about? I came in late so I might just have totally misread what was going on. I don't know, possible ways to prevent millions from dying through a possible NK first strike?
Spy sats. Spy planes. Whatever you want to call it. You know they're being watched carefully. You know what I'm saying >
I do, but i also have a broad idea as to how those things work (not in detail, but some). There's no real time life feed in 1080p. If an acceptable possibility existed of taking out NK without millions dying (not even counting NK citizens) it would have been used a while ago. Sometimes there is no good answer but sit back and hope things work out while preparing for the worst.
There were. But China intervened. Now we're here and it kinda falls on China to get their partner straightened out.
|
On August 09 2017 07:12 Mohdoo wrote:Show nested quote +On August 09 2017 07:11 a_flayer wrote:On August 09 2017 07:09 Mohdoo wrote:On August 09 2017 07:07 a_flayer wrote:
Some of you people are crazy radicalized warmongers with your views on the NK "problem". The type of thinking you are portraying operates under the assumption that tragic, horrible things could never actually happen. Tragic horrible things are almost guaranteed to happen when you start invading countries as a form of "defense". What about pearl harbor?
What about it? Japan wanted to prevent the US from being able to interfere with their military activities in the Pacific. They struck first in an attempt to eliminate the possible threat, much as they had done against Russia before that in 1904 (destroying the eastern fleet at Port Arthur). I feel like they just wildly underestimated the ability and determination of the US to rally against them.
They basically made the same sort of mistake the US did with Iraq (although in a very different set of circumstances), thinking they could strike quickly to eliminate the danger posed by the US navy. The difference is that the Iraqis who did not want the US there had to turn to insurgent warfare, while the US could maintain their unified military forces due to the lack of invasion/occupation by Japan (which was not a realistic possibility).
The only reason why you think Pearl Harbor is an example to bring up is because you were on the receiving end of an attack and are thus blinded by 'patriotism'.
If you invade North Korea in the name of defending your security, all you are doing is inviting them to launch their nukes in retaliation (which is ALL they threaten to do - retaliate if they are [about to be] attacked).
|
On August 09 2017 07:41 m4ini wrote:Show nested quote +On August 09 2017 07:37 On_Slaught wrote:On August 09 2017 07:24 m4ini wrote:
Right. Except that's quite literally what you implied. NK wants nukes to be left alone, now what does Japan do that constantly get threatened by ICBMs falling into their waters? Just answer that. Without saying "well NK wouldn't nuke them" since it's bullshit, nobody would've nuked NK either, so nukes as MAD were pointless.
I'm curious. Japan relies on countries like the US, Britain, and France. This is why people make allies and join groups like NATO. Our anti-missle and deterrence bubbles cover more than our own borders. I am a big proponent of limiting the number of nukes on this planet. Going to war is the worst way to accomplish that. Japan doesn't have a mutual defense agreement with Britain and France. Japan does have one with the US, a country that ignored a similar treaty with ukraine, so take that as you will. Japan relies on other countries because it has to, it's like arguing that NK could've relied on chinas nukes. It's bs.
Sigh,
The US had no defense treaty with Ukraine. Britain had a treaty to respect its sovereignty. Not even a defense treaty.
(and incase your wondering, yes I was in favor of a harder response to the Crimea invasion, tanks should have started rolling to the Ukraine border the moment 'totally not Russian soldiers' started showing up).
|
On August 09 2017 07:42 Sermokala wrote:Show nested quote +On August 09 2017 07:39 ZerOCoolSC2 wrote:On August 09 2017 07:35 Sermokala wrote:On August 09 2017 07:14 ZerOCoolSC2 wrote:On August 09 2017 07:09 Gorsameth wrote:On August 09 2017 07:03 ZerOCoolSC2 wrote:
While I'm worried about Japan, we've got them covered. I would think they have their own way of dealing with NK if it comes down to it. I'm more worried that SK would get bypassed as an effort to appease China if it goes any further. We have a large contingent in Japan already and more in SK. I think we could probably walk through NK within a year if we were determined to wipe the country out. China would bitch and moan, send some weapons in to "defend" but at the end of the day, they wouldn't want to be on the same side of NK.
Arming the world with nukes is obviously not the way to go. Iran doesn't have them (if our inspectors are to be believed) and I doubt they want more sanctions hurting them. The ayatollah is the biggest problem in Iran, since he has so much power. If the government was the one and the ayatollah was simply a figurehead like the emperor of japan or the queen, then we could have a more civilized discussion with them.
NK is a threat because they are unpredictable.
tl;dr China won't move if we invade. It's against their economic interests to back NK if they go off the rails against SK, Japan, or the US. Seoul is leveled by artillery and missiles fly wherever they can get them, possibly with nuclear warheads. How the hell is invading NK an option? Yes, the US military can beat NK, no shit. Imo the best bet is still basic MAD principle. The moment NK actually strikes they are removed from the map so its in their best interest to not do so. We had that same mindset when we went into Afghanistan and Iraq. Turned out quite nicely for us, wouldn't you say. Note I said if we wanted to wipe them out. If NK is aggressive in starting a conflict and we send in our military along with Seoul, China isn't going to intervene. They would lose too much economically. It's in their best interests to get NK to step down. If they did go to war, China would be best served severing all ties and help SK as a new avenue for economic potential. We were correct in thinking that in Afghanistan and Iraq. both "wars" lasted less then it took to get there and neither country offered any real resistance. NK is on the same tech level and would act in the soviet pattern docterine that the US military is built to go against. Wars like that don't exist when there are nukes on the field but we'd do just fine going against a WW2 army with out hyperwar army. China would go to war if we went to war in NK the whole reason why they intervied in the first place is because they didn't trust the US having a land border into the relevant part of their nation. Ever sense nixon went to china its just been an akward dance of "well we don't have any other friends and we still don't want you to have a land border with us to the relevent part of the nation. China sees NK as its buffer state between it and the United states. That hasn't changed. All we did was topple the government and insert our own moderate puppets. Then we stayed for how long? 10 years? The "war" was over, but we still had to fight resistance. I'm talking scorched earth policy here. But in this case they would act like an enemy force from WW2. They would believe their dear leader is a god until he is dead. Their army would fight in the field until they break and then surrender. We still haven't left japan or Germany after WW2.
I'm all for leaving Germany. They no longer need US forces on their soil. While we've allowed Japan to raise a national army (not the JSDF), we can't leave them just yet. I would love to not be in any country militarily that has displayed a rational line of thinking when it came to world political issues.
|
|
|
On August 09 2017 07:44 Gorsameth wrote:Show nested quote +On August 09 2017 07:41 m4ini wrote:On August 09 2017 07:37 On_Slaught wrote:On August 09 2017 07:24 m4ini wrote:
Right. Except that's quite literally what you implied. NK wants nukes to be left alone, now what does Japan do that constantly get threatened by ICBMs falling into their waters? Just answer that. Without saying "well NK wouldn't nuke them" since it's bullshit, nobody would've nuked NK either, so nukes as MAD were pointless.
I'm curious. Japan relies on countries like the US, Britain, and France. This is why people make allies and join groups like NATO. Our anti-missle and deterrence bubbles cover more than our own borders. I am a big proponent of limiting the number of nukes on this planet. Going to war is the worst way to accomplish that. Japan doesn't have a mutual defense agreement with Britain and France. Japan does have one with the US, a country that ignored a similar treaty with ukraine, so take that as you will. Japan relies on other countries because it has to, it's like arguing that NK could've relied on chinas nukes. It's bs. Sigh, The US had no defense treaty with Ukraine. Britain had a treaty to respect its sovereignty. Not even a defense treaty. (and incase your wondering, yes I was in favor of a harder response to the Crimea invasion, tanks should have started rolling to the Ukraine border the moment 'totally not Russian soldiers' started showing up).
.. eh?
While we're on the same position in regards to the response that should've been, the US signed the same treaty as the UK. In fact, the US made it clear that russia is in violation of said memorandum.
I'm all for leaving Germany. They no longer need US forces on their soil. While we've allowed Japan to raise a national army (not the JSDF), we can't leave them just yet. I would love to not be in any country militarily that has displayed a rational line of thinking when it came to world political issues.
So would be many germans, but i personally would urge you to wait until we get a decent defense minister again. Mrs. von der Leyen is absolutely incapable of giving our military even a direction other than "females should be able to do all kinds of things" and "we certainly should have kindergarden spots etc for soldiers!" next to absolutely retarded "special uniforms for pregnant soldiers". Oh and obviously being in bed with weapon manufacturers, bullshitting her way through weapon contracts for obviously flawed weapons. edit: man that angers me more than it should, but that stupid bitch is just the personification of what many people think females do in the military. It's a disgrace.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
