|
Although this thread does not function under the same strict guidelines as the USPMT, it is still a general practice on TL to provide a source with an explanation on why it is relevant and what purpose it adds to the discussion. Failure to do so will result in a mod action. |
On July 10 2018 01:46 Sent. wrote:It's really impressive how good Trump is at identifying what his supporters want to hear. Too bad they want to hear this. Show nested quote +The United States is spending far more on NATO than any other Country. This is not fair, nor is it acceptable. While these countries have been increasing their contributions since I took office, they must do much more. Germany is at 1%, the U.S. is at 4%, and NATO benefits Europe far more than it does the U.S. By some accounts, the U.S. is paying for 90% of NATO, with many countries nowhere close to their 2% commitment. On top of this the European Union has a Trade Surplus of $151 Million with the U.S., with big Trade Barriers on U.S. goods. NO! Maybe Tusk will reply with something as good as "Looking at the latest decisions of President Trump, someone could even think: With friends like that, who needs enemies?”, which he said after Trump quit the Iran deal.
He gets to say those things about NATO because the EU nations don't do anything to hit back. Right now it is just crowd pleasing rhetoric with no consequences. And like in the past, appeasement of the beast will not save you from its wrath. The NATO nations cannot just wait for the next administration.
|
On July 10 2018 01:46 Sent. wrote:It's really impressive how good Trump is at identifying what his supporters want to hear. Too bad they want to hear this. Show nested quote +The United States is spending far more on NATO than any other Country. This is not fair, nor is it acceptable. While these countries have been increasing their contributions since I took office, they must do much more. Germany is at 1%, the U.S. is at 4%, and NATO benefits Europe far more than it does the U.S. By some accounts, the U.S. is paying for 90% of NATO, with many countries nowhere close to their 2% commitment. On top of this the European Union has a Trade Surplus of $151 Million with the U.S., with big Trade Barriers on U.S. goods. NO! Maybe Tusk will reply with something as good as "Looking at the latest decisions of President Trump, someone could even think: With friends like that, who needs enemies?”, which he said after Trump quit the Iran deal.
I don't understand how you can show the attitude that you do towards what I suggested and at the same time post like this.
We need to be proactive in this and just ask the Americans to leave, or we'll look like fucking tools. Lol.
|
On July 10 2018 01:50 Plansix wrote:Show nested quote +On July 10 2018 01:46 Sent. wrote:It's really impressive how good Trump is at identifying what his supporters want to hear. Too bad they want to hear this. The United States is spending far more on NATO than any other Country. This is not fair, nor is it acceptable. While these countries have been increasing their contributions since I took office, they must do much more. Germany is at 1%, the U.S. is at 4%, and NATO benefits Europe far more than it does the U.S. By some accounts, the U.S. is paying for 90% of NATO, with many countries nowhere close to their 2% commitment. On top of this the European Union has a Trade Surplus of $151 Million with the U.S., with big Trade Barriers on U.S. goods. NO! Maybe Tusk will reply with something as good as "Looking at the latest decisions of President Trump, someone could even think: With friends like that, who needs enemies?”, which he said after Trump quit the Iran deal. He gets to say those things about NATO because the EU nations don't do anything to hit back. Right now it is just crowd pleasing rhetoric with no consequences. And like in the past, appeasement of the beast will not save you from its wrath. The NATO nations cannot just wait for the next administration.
I'm aware it's just rhetoric. The problem is that it's a symptom of the growing rift between Europe and the US. Your deplorables want Europe humiliated and our Americanophobes keep asking for silly shit like allying with China. It's sad.
I have no idea how to fix the transatlantic relationship. Maybe divorce is inevitable, but I don't want to accelerate it with unnecessary hostility. The alternatives are much worse, so I'm not interesting in trying them out.
|
On July 10 2018 02:17 Sent. wrote:Show nested quote +On July 10 2018 01:50 Plansix wrote:On July 10 2018 01:46 Sent. wrote:It's really impressive how good Trump is at identifying what his supporters want to hear. Too bad they want to hear this. The United States is spending far more on NATO than any other Country. This is not fair, nor is it acceptable. While these countries have been increasing their contributions since I took office, they must do much more. Germany is at 1%, the U.S. is at 4%, and NATO benefits Europe far more than it does the U.S. By some accounts, the U.S. is paying for 90% of NATO, with many countries nowhere close to their 2% commitment. On top of this the European Union has a Trade Surplus of $151 Million with the U.S., with big Trade Barriers on U.S. goods. NO! Maybe Tusk will reply with something as good as "Looking at the latest decisions of President Trump, someone could even think: With friends like that, who needs enemies?”, which he said after Trump quit the Iran deal. He gets to say those things about NATO because the EU nations don't do anything to hit back. Right now it is just crowd pleasing rhetoric with no consequences. And like in the past, appeasement of the beast will not save you from its wrath. The NATO nations cannot just wait for the next administration. I'm aware it's just rhetoric. The problem is that it's a symptom of the growing rift between Europe and the US. Your deplorables want Europe humiliated and our Americanophobes keep asking for silly shit like allying with China. It's sad. I have no idea how to fix the transatlantic relationship. Maybe divorce is inevitable, but I don't want to accelerate it with unnecessary hostility. The alternatives are much worse, so I'm not interesting in trying them out.
I agree. But I just worry there is a greater risk of divorce if the US population doesn’t feel some push back. There are people in the US that value our relationship with Europe, but they can’t make the argument that the relationship is in danger of falling apart without real world examples of the breakdown.
|
By Allah, the way you two are talking... SMH *facepalm*
We can remain perfectly good friends with the United States and trade with everyone. Africa, Middle East, China, Russia, United States, South America. It's not as if we'll never see each other again. We just don't need to have ... What part of "military alliances are a very unnatural state of international relations" do you not understand?
https://www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2018/05/moon-south-korea-us-alliance/560501/
SEOUL, South Korea—A top adviser to South Korea’s president says he would eventually like to see the U.S.–South Korea alliance end. In language that sounded almost Trump-like, Chung In Moon, a special adviser to President Moon Jae In for foreign affairs and national security, said in an interview that alliances in general are a “very unnatural state of international relations” and said that, “for me, the best thing is to really get rid of alliance.” In the meantime, he says, he “strongly” supports “the continued presence of American forces” in Korea, despite hoping for an arrangement that he thinks would better serve his nation’s interests.
We shouldn't have to need their military here. Having both our peoples be at home makes much more sense. It serves our European interests much better and is a much better arrangement for everyone.
Isn't that is what you want, anyway, Poland? Secure the borders? No dirty foreigners, protect your culture?
Honestly, some people...
|
Every time someone cites South Korea as some form of US exploitation of the country it makes me question the education system of the nation there are from. Of all the endless examples of terrible, harmful US foreign policy, why do people continue to pick that one where the US came to stop Russian backed regime change? And the one where we showed restraint and didn’t nuke the crap out of China to win the war? Or the one where we were asked to stay there for well over 50 years? Vietnam exists. Or Iran. Just cite that those.
|
I'm not talking about exploitation at all. What the fuck?
It really sucks, cause I can't use "it's like two men having sex!" anymore when explaining an unnatural relationship, and "a dog and a cat having sex" doesn't work cause then people go "that's not the same at all, it's two different species!" Using "child and 500 pound fat man" is just weird and demeaning towards South Korea.
What else can be a good analogy to explain an unnatural relationship? Anyone? Any analogies? There must be something that fits the bill...
|
It has been like that since the 1950s. Do you know why there have been US troops in South Korea for close to 70 years?
|
On July 10 2018 03:18 Plansix wrote:
Do you know why there are US troops in South Korea?
I'm sure the Senior Advisor to the South Korean President knows, smart-ass. You want me to start quoting Wikipedia on what your country did to those poor North Korean people again?
|
On July 10 2018 03:18 a_flayer wrote:Show nested quote +On July 10 2018 03:18 Plansix wrote:
Do you know why there are US troops in South Korea? I'm sure the Senior Advisor to the South Korean President knows, smart-ass. You want me to start quoting Wikipedia on what your country did to those poor North Korean people again?
Did America start the Korean War?
|
No, but your country didn't have to make their civilians into mud dwellers.
On November 17, 1950, General MacArthur told U.S. ambassador to Korea John J. Muccio, "Unfortunately, this area will be left a desert." By "this area" MacArthur meant the entire area between "our present positions and the border."
In May 1951, an international fact finding team from East Germany, West Germany, China, and the Netherlands stated, "The members, in the whole course of their journey, did not see one town that had not been destroyed, and there were very few undamaged villages."
On June 25, 1951, General O'Donnell, commander of the Far Eastern Air Force Bomber Command, testified in answer to a question from Senator John C. Stennis ("...North Korea has been virtually destroyed, hasn't it?): "Oh, yes; ... I would say that the entire, almost the entire Korean Peninsula is just a terrible mess. Everything is destroyed. There is nothing standing worthy of the name ... Just before the Chinese came in we were grounded. There were no more targets in Korea."
In June 1952, as part of a strategy to maintain "air pressure" during armistice negotiations, FEAF's Fifth Air Force selected seventy-eight villages for destruction by B-26 light bombers.
In August 1951, war correspondent Tibor Meráy stated that he had witnessed "a complete devastation between the Yalu River and the capital." He said that there were "no more cities in North Korea." He added, "My impression was that I am traveling on the moon because there was only devastation—every city was a collection of chimneys."
Napalm was widely used. In John Ford's 1951 documentary, This is Korea, footage of napalm deployment is accompanied by a voice-over by John Wayne saying, "Burn 'em out, cook 'em, fry 'em"; the New York Herald Tribune hailed "Napalm, the No. 1 Weapon in Korea". Winston Churchill, among others, criticized American use of napalm, calling it "very cruel", as the US/UN forces, he said, were "splashing it all over the civilian population", "tortur[ing] great masses of people". The American official who took this statement declined to publicize it.
The bombing campaign destroyed almost every substantial building in North Korea. The war's highest-ranking U.S. POW, U.S. Major General William F. Dean, reported that the majority of North Korean cities and villages he saw were either rubble or snow-covered wasteland. North Korean factories, schools, hospitals, and government offices were forced to move underground. In November 1950, the North Korean leadership instructed the population to build dugouts and mud huts and to dig underground tunnels, in order to solve the acute housing problem.
|
I am not specifically sure what that means. There is 70 years of history with North Korea and we have very little control over how that nation operates. But they never declared peace. We built the demilitarize zone at the 38th parallel and the countries have been openly hostile for the last 70 years. North Korea tried to tunnel under a it a bunch of times too. The US and SK would love peace with NK, they have never been interested.
Edit: You do know what happened to General MacArthur, right?
|
I just read up. He became "a businessman" where he was manufacturing more death. What a swell guy.
+ Show Spoiler +It's such a fucking typical story too, you can literally look up any general and this is what they do. It's a huge cycle that's been happening for decades. Elect more anti-war candidates like Ocasio-Cortez, for crying out loud. Hillary was not incremental progress, she was two steps backwards from Obama.
Following a series of major defeats he was removed from command by President Harry S. Truman on 11 April 1951. He later became chairman of the board of Remington Rand.
M1911A1 U.S. Army semi-automatic pistol manufactured by Remington Rand.
And look he enabled your country to sell your propaganda too:
+ Show Spoiler +All those generals keep appearing on mass corporate media, which in turn keeps selling war somehow... funny how that works, isn't it? There must be a word for this...
Initially produced by E. Remington and Sons, the Remington Typewriters were the first to use the QWERTY keyboard layout. Remington had bought the design from Christopher Sholes. The Remington No.1 was the first model released.
Remington Rand was acquired by Sperry Corporation in 1955 to form a company then known as Sperry Rand (later shortened to Sperry). However the brand name of "Remington Rand" remained as a subdivision for many years.[8] Sperry merged in 1986 with Burroughs to form Unisys.
Unisys Corporation is an American global information technology company based in Blue Bell, Pennsylvania, that provides a portfolio of IT services, software, and technology. It is the legacy proprietor of the Burroughs and UNIVAC line of computers, formed when the former bought the latter.
Too bad the internet turned against you later. Tee-hee.
|
You skipped the part where he wanted to nuke NK into the ground and invade all the way into China if necessary, but was relieved from commanded by the President for not respecting the president’s authority to stop the war. He came hope to ticker tape parade, was seen as a hero even though he was removed from command. At that moment the US president stood up to the US death machine and stopped it, even that isn’t good enough for you. Apparently McArthur should have been locked up for life or executed, I guess?
And again, do you know why the US has troops in Europe? Why we have bases in Germany?
|
Because the US wanted to stop the Soviets from liberating the whole of Europe from capitalism =)
Don't respond to that, you'd be talking to a ghost.
It doesn't matter why you're here or why you're in South Korea, that time is of the past. We can be free people everywhere without bringing tanks to each others shores. I didn't intend for this to be a hostile encounter. You decided to randomly bring up these events of the past or even mention exploitation out of the blue.
Why do you think the relationship as it is is NOT unnatural, because I don't know how else to describe all the weight lying on the United States in these alliances. It's unnatural. Peace on the Korean Peninsula should be up to North and South Korea. Stability in Europe and Ukraine and Russia should be the business of those people involved. Not the United States, who is an ocean away. Past reasons be damned.
I wouldn't want the Trump administration negotiating for peace on my behalf if I lived in South Korea.
|
The history is sort of important for why these agreements exist. And they has been the status quo for 70 years and we have had relative peace for that time. They are natural because the nations that have them asked the US to put troops in their country as part of the alliance. And the times before agreements like NATO or the South Korean alliance had more war, not less.
|
Yeah, no, that doesn't make any of it "natural". Society demands that such agreements put taint on everything that happens in the relationship between other countries. The fact that my ancestors agreed to do that for whatever reasons they had doesn't mean it's the way to do things now. Hah! Now I can use the sex analogy!!! This is like demanding that we maintain our tradition of pretending that gay sex doesn't happen! Because that's how we always did it and so it must be like that now. But no, it's not right to do things that way. The vassals must break free.
By the way, I just got a PM from zeflin where he basically told me was going to "shun me" (I'm paraphrasing).
|
Feel free to campaign to end the agreements. Don’t worry about us over here in the US, most US citizens have no love of defending the EU, South Korea or anyone else. We were tired of it in the 1990s and we are exhausted now. I’m sure we will sell you the guns and tanks you can’t make yourself, if you need them. Just don't complain when there isn't overwhelming support for blowing up a 70 year alliance that has lead to teh longest era of European peace in history
|
Yeah, it's a giant favor towards the United States. This is what I'm saying when I say "the United States should point its collective production towards socialist projects rather than making weapons and occupying the world". That's why I'm so supportive of what's Trump's doing in Europe, and why I'm hoping this is going to be followed up by a wave of anti-war socialist candidates such as Ocasio-Cortez. So I don't understand why I'm met with such hostility when I propose these things.
Make Europe work to ramp up military efforts now, and then in 2020 or 2024 based on what I heard Pelosi say the other day lol you can elect an anti-war person along with a whole chorus of anti-war representatives, and begin to withdraw from Afghanistan and the Ramstein airbase can be replaced with a defensive German-run project before 2030. Something like that.
https://www.cnbc.com/2017/01/18/chinese-billionaire-jack-ma-says-the-us-wasted-trillions-on-warfare-instead-of-investing-in-infrastructure.html
Chinese billionaire Jack Ma says the US wasted trillions on warfare instead of investing in infrastructure
And aren't you spending more on the defense budget than you were in at the height of the Iraq war? There's much more than just the wars going on. You have to cut back on it all. Philippines, South Korea, Europe. But it has to start with Afghanistan.
|
On July 10 2018 04:11 a_flayer wrote:
Because the US wanted to stop the Soviets from liberating the whole of Europe from capitalism =)
Don't respond to that, you'd be talking to a ghost.
It doesn't matter why you're here or why you're in South Korea, that time is of the past. We can be free people everywhere without bringing tanks to each others shores. I didn't intend for this to be a hostile encounter. You decided to randomly bring up these events of the past or even mention exploitation out of the blue.
Why do you think the relationship as it is is NOT unnatural, because I don't know how else to describe all the weight lying on the United States in these alliances. It's unnatural. Peace on the Korean Peninsula should be up to North and South Korea. Stability in Europe and Ukraine and Russia should be the business of those people involved. Not the United States, who is an ocean away. Past reasons be damned.
I wouldn't want the Trump administration negotiating for peace on my behalf if I lived in South Korea.
How old are you?
Do you remember the Balkan wars, when tiny countries more or less in the middle of Europe slaughtered each other to the best of their abilities? Do you remember the ethnic cleansings, the atrocities, the accompanying rhetoric? And most importantly, do you remember the utter inability of Europe to put an end to all of this until the US stepped in.
People claiming Europe can defend itself either hopelessly overestimate us or want us defenseless.
And quid pro quo, I'm 40+ these days.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
