Hahahaha!

And the West's puppet is attacking Russia with America, British, German, French weapons!

Didn't you tell us Russia has lost this stupid war last year?

yes. Sadly its taking longer. Attacking russia is an interesting turn of phrase.
Id love to see them given way more NATO weapons.

quote:

Originally posted by shankspony:
yes. Sadly its taking longer. Attacking russia is an interesting turn of phrase.
Id love to see them given way more NATO weapons.

NATO wanted to bankrupt Russia.

Germany and cow are bankrupt now!

I don’t recall anyone saying Russia had lost. Russia expected to roll over Ukraine and have the whole operation finished in a few days or weeks, yet here we are almost 2 years later and Ukraine is still holding them off… and doing so without any significant air assets.

The EU is a long way from bankrupt and is close to completing training of pilots on F16s.

Putin is banking on the west getting tired of supporting Ukraine but it’s not happened as yet, although parts of the GOP would cut Ukraine off tomorrow the EU is still firm in its support.

However this ends, Putin has forced Finland and Sweden to join NATO, and that is a one way street, they ain’t going to leave again if he says sorry and promises to behave. He has also pushed NATO countries to significantly increase their defence spending.

Republicans are "prolonging the war" by doing Putin's bidding and denying Ukraine the weapons to defend itself, at the same time denying our military the upgraded weapons we replace the old ones we give Ukraine with.

And everyone would get there money if Biden would do something about our border. See how blame goes both ways Jeffi?

quote:

Originally posted by theback40:
And everyone would get there money if Biden would do something about our border. See how blame goes both ways Jeffi?

What does Ukraine being invaded by Putin have to do with the U.S. border?

This sums it up pretty well.

quote:

We are currently in a pre-stage of a world war. I compare it to the period between 1936-1939. The civil war in Spain is raging and it is unclear who will win, but Italy and Germany help Franco, while the West mainly stays silent. Same goes with Czechoslovakia and Austria, two sovereign nations which still are independent but on the verge to be annexed. Again the West does nothing. By the end of this pre-world war period the fascist regimes have achieved everything and with the Hitler-Stalin Pact the gates to WW2 are now fully open.

Russia, North Korea and Iran, as well as their minions such Hezbollah, Hamas, Assad-Syria and the Houthis in Yemen are currently moving against the free world. China is in my opinion currently more on the side-lines even when some Chinese hardware appears in Russian arsenal, but it is far from what it could be if China seriously goes in. China has its own plan and it does not include an existent Russia.

This might sound bleak but it doesn't have to be. There is still a chance to avert world war 3. The key to everything is Ukraine, and this is no hyperbole. When Russia fails in Ukraine, then the whole axis of the dictatorships will fall apart. Putin will be considered the greatest loser of Russian history, will be removed and Russia in its current form will end to exist. Regimes in countries like Belarus, Syria and Serbia will lose their puppetplayer and will end. The mullah regime will be extremely exposed and vulnerable, offering the freedom-loving people of Iran to finally overthrow their mullah regime. This in turn will cause a domino effect in the Middle-East, ending the most important ally of the Assad regime, Hezbollah and Hamas, and freeing Syria and Lebanon from their biggest curse.

It is up to us in the West if we want to avert WW3. Ukraine and her fight are directly connected to this question. Ukraine is the key between freedom for all of us or WW3 if Ukraine is abandoned. There is nothing in between. It cannot be overstated that this is the single-greatest decision of our times.

quote:

Originally posted by shankspony:
This sums it up pretty well.

quote:

We are currently in a pre-stage of a world war. I compare it to the period between 1936-1939. The civil war in Spain is raging and it is unclear who will win, but Italy and Germany help Franco, while the West mainly stays silent. Same goes with Czechoslovakia and Austria, two sovereign nations which still are independent but on the verge to be annexed. Again the West does nothing. By the end of this pre-world war period the fascist regimes have achieved everything and with the Hitler-Stalin Pact the gates to WW2 are now fully open.

Russia, North Korea and Iran, as well as their minions such Hezbollah, Hamas, Assad-Syria and the Houthis in Yemen are currently moving against the free world. China is in my opinion currently more on the side-lines even when some Chinese hardware appears in Russian arsenal, but it is far from what it could be if China seriously goes in. China has its own plan and it does not include an existent Russia.

This might sound bleak but it doesn't have to be. There is still a chance to avert world war 3. The key to everything is Ukraine, and this is no hyperbole. When Russia fails in Ukraine, then the whole axis of the dictatorships will fall apart. Putin will be considered the greatest loser of Russian history, will be removed and Russia in its current form will end to exist. Regimes in countries like Belarus, Syria and Serbia will lose their puppetplayer and will end. The mullah regime will be extremely exposed and vulnerable, offering the freedom-loving people of Iran to finally overthrow their mullah regime. This in turn will cause a domino effect in the Middle-East, ending the most important ally of the Assad regime, Hezbollah and Hamas, and freeing Syria and Lebanon from their biggest curse.

It is up to us in the West if we want to avert WW3. Ukraine and her fight are directly connected to this question. Ukraine is the key between freedom for all of us or WW3 if Ukraine is abandoned. There is nothing in between. It cannot be overstated that this is the single-greatest decision of our times.

Republicans are harming our National Security to try to force the resumption of Trump's Wall, despite the American People voting overwhelmingly to elect the guy who said it was stupid, and was right.

Well jeffi, it was a dem who said " never let a crisis go to waste" If everyone wants their money so bad, compromise. It's what should happen anyway.

I think you are overly optimistic.

First off, Ukraine given its population is not going to be capable of continuing the assault in Russia to Moscow. Victory, either as Franco gained in the Spanish civil war, or the Allied powers gained in WWII is not an option.

The only real way for victory for Ukraine is that the Russian people get rid of Putin and agree that they don’t have any claims on Ukraine.

I don’t know Russia well enough to say the latter part is possible. Putin has done a very good job on selling that part of Ukraine is now ethnically Russian to the Russian people. I can see potentially a cease fire, I can see Putin and his lackeys being removed from power… but I don’t see the underlying issue going away easily.


I agree that it’s important to stop Putin’s expansion and that we should be helping.

Jeffive you should be a little more consistent- either we are giving surplus to needs old gear (which by definition means we have replaced it) as you have been claiming, or we have been giving away part of our ready reserve by the politicians telling the military to reduce what type of threat they need to be prepared for. That’s a secdef decision, and he’s part of the Biden administration.

Somehow I haven’t heard about the house refusing to buy new weapons for the US.

As to the comment that the EU remains steadfast in support and will do so… if that was the case, then why would the USG need to be supplying the largest amount? The EU as a whole is as big as the US (roughly) yet has given half the military assistance (admittedly they have given more humanitarian aid and financial help like loans.)

Has the EU offered to pay the US for Ukrainian military supplies? Not that I have seen. Maybe Trump in his inept fashion was right in that the continent was not pulling its own weight in NATO, and needed to be forced to up their game?

I agree that the Ukrainian invasion is a threat to NATO, and thus we all have some obligation but as has been admitted by Zelensky they DO have a corruption problem, even now.

Just throwing more and better weapons into the mill doesn’t necessarily mean a successful resolution.

Add in, it would be foolish to not think that Russia and others are not using the current porosity of the border to gain some operational intelligence foothold over here. It’s all interrelated.

quote:

Originally posted by theback40:
Well jeffi, it was a dem who said " never let a crisis go to waste" If everyone wants their money so bad, compromise. It's what should happen anyway.

Everybody is willing to compromise except the House extremists:

Link

And the house holds the purse strings. Get over the blame game, each side learns from the other, they all hold things hostage. The dems have done their fair share too.
It sucks, but neither side will change at this point.

quote:

Originally posted by crbutler:


As to the comment that the EU remains steadfast in support and will do so… if that was the case, then why would the USG need to be supplying the largest amount? The EU as a whole is as big as the US (roughly) yet has given half the military assistance (admittedly they have given more humanitarian aid and financial help like loans.)

Has the EU offered to pay the US for Ukrainian military supplies? Not that I have seen. Maybe Trump in his inept fashion was right in that the continent was not pulling its own weight in NATO, and needed to be forced to up their game?
.

The US is the single largest supplier of military kit to Ukraine . The EU tends to provide help in two ways, either direct military and financial donations from individual states, and financial aid from the EU.

The EU itself does not have an army, it’s not a country, it doesn’t have warehouses full of tanks therefore its aid can only really be financial, with which Ukraine can buy what it needs, such as US weapons. So yes, indirectly the EU may well be paying for US weapons, but it can also buy medical supplies or whatever else is needed.

If you include cash given to Ukraine by the EU and its member countries the overall value is equal to or greater than from the US.

https://www.ifw-kiel.de/topics...ine-support-tracker/

This war has shown the hypocrisy of the West.

America is given a free ride each time it invades other countries.

Russia had every sanction placed against it and its individuals!

THAT is what the world has learned!

Ok, so if I understand correctly:
Russia who has no exports outside natural resources because they've had no technology advances since their last Nazi engineer died is now getting and using armaments from, "The Hermit Kingdom" which they formed 100 years ago.
Additionally, Iran, who's second export outside of oil is sand is arming Russia despite their having no manufacturing or exporting of manufacturing.

And this is scary?

And Shanks wants NATO, (Me, not him,) to send more guns?

This is impressive!

quote:

Originally posted by Saeed:

quote:

Originally posted by shankspony:
yes. Sadly its taking longer. Attacking russia is an interesting turn of phrase.
Id love to see them given way more NATO weapons.

NATO wanted to bankrupt Russia.




Germany and cow are bankrupt now!

It seems the Americans are the last hope for the Ukrainians in this war, it don't look good for them. I'm sure Putin is taking note.

quote:

Originally posted by Grizzly Adams1:

quote:

Originally posted by Saeed:

quote:

Originally posted by shankspony:
yes. Sadly its taking longer. Attacking russia is an interesting turn of phrase.
Id love to see them given way more NATO weapons.

NATO wanted to bankrupt Russia.




Germany and cow are bankrupt now!

It seems the Americans are the last hope for the Ukrainians in this war, it don't look good for them. I'm sure Putin is taking note.

"Taking note"and he'll what?

I'm gonna make an ignorant guess and say maybe Vlad is willing to trade radiation for arms. How would I know, but maybe Vlad could offer Kim Chang Go radio active material in exchange for DPRK missiles or offer the Camel Jockies and entire nuke in exchange for arms.

Seems to me your fate is sealed in a global conflict if the best friends you have are DPRK and Iran.

quote:

Originally posted by Scott King:
Ok, so if I understand correctly:
Russia who has no exports outside natural resources because they've had no technology advances since their last Nazi engineer died is now getting and using armaments from, "The Hermit Kingdom" which they formed 100 years ago.
Additionally, Iran, who's second export outside of oil is sand is arming Russia despite their having no manufacturing or exporting of manufacturing.

And this is scary?

And Shanks wants NATO, (Me, not him,) to send more guns?

This is impressive!

If you want a combative answer more kiwis have died sorting out northern hemisphere shit than the other way round. By a long margin. Bout time you all sorted out your shit without needing us.

quote:

Originally posted by shankspony:

quote:

Originally posted by Scott King:
Ok, so if I understand correctly:
Russia who has no exports outside natural resources because they've had no technology advances since their last Nazi engineer died is now getting and using armaments from, "The Hermit Kingdom" which they formed 100 years ago.
Additionally, Iran, who's second export outside of oil is sand is arming Russia despite their having no manufacturing or exporting of manufacturing.

And this is scary?

And Shanks wants NATO, (Me, not him,) to send more guns?

This is impressive!

If you want a combative answer more kiwis have died sorting out northern hemisphere shit than the other way round. By a long margin. Bout time you all sorted out your shit without needing us.

Believe me, that'll be more than fine, stay home from now on and I'll do the same!

No offense meant and it should go without saying you are welcome here 24/7/365, but if you bring a weapon, bring a sporting weapon, not a military. Iand we can sort out our own mischief as you do down there.

I suspect you and I are similar, one of the reasons we live where we do is to avoid the nuts. Isn't that basic human migration? I'm happy my ancestors from Scandinavia left home in 1900 for California and I'm really happy to have left California for Alaska. Inclement weather is my nemesis, not rival clans. Not the nuts.

"The Land of the Free" has been roped into Foreign Entanglements too many times to its detriment and you can even see here on the pf the roping advocates are usually those with no skin in the game.

Doc Lane and I have kids that'll be fighting age soon and so I say every time, "nah, no thanks, you go do it." I have learned from history.

quote:

Originally posted by nute:

quote:

Originally posted by crbutler:


As to the comment that the EU remains steadfast in support and will do so… if that was the case, then why would the USG need to be supplying the largest amount? The EU as a whole is as big as the US (roughly) yet has given half the military assistance (admittedly they have given more humanitarian aid and financial help like loans.)

Has the EU offered to pay the US for Ukrainian military supplies? Not that I have seen. Maybe Trump in his inept fashion was right in that the continent was not pulling its own weight in NATO, and needed to be forced to up their game?
.

The US is the single largest supplier of military kit to Ukraine . The EU tends to provide help in two ways, either direct military and financial donations from individual states, and financial aid from the EU.

The EU itself does not have an army, it’s not a country, it doesn’t have warehouses full of tanks therefore its aid can only really be financial, with which Ukraine can buy what it needs, such as US weapons. So yes, indirectly the EU may well be paying for US weapons, but it can also buy medical supplies or whatever else is needed.

If you include cash given to Ukraine by the EU and its member countries the overall value is equal to or greater than from the US.

https://www.ifw-kiel.de/topics...ine-support-tracker/

Then why aren’t the EU members of NATO stepping up the needed military help.

The EU (by that I mean both the EU member nations and the EU) has given a substantial amount of money in humanitarian aid and more so loans to the Ukrainian government.

The answer is that the EU can’t do it because they mostly neutered their defensive capabilities by making the US pay for europes defense after the fall of the USSR.

They have upped their economy at our expense because we then have to pay more for defense.

I get that the Ukrainians need help.

The EU should be paying the US for weapons transfers… not claiming that they are giving loans (which imply being paid back) that are being squandered by corruption to some extent.

My point to your argument that the US should do more and that Europe is doing “its share” is that we already have done more than our share… Saeed’s reaction shows that. He (and he’s an educated man) shows that the US’s attempts to stop conflict and human right abuses are seen as some form of imperialism. Your argument is failing in the sense that the position that the EU will not allow Ukraine to fall obviates that from a military perspective, they can’t provide what Ukraine needs by themselves. Given we are already deficit spending, we can’t do it ourselves either.

NZ does tend to try and get an out on conflict issues nowdays. They tend to want to contribute in nonleathal ways rather than pony up weapons and blood.

I do understand that the ANZAC’s came to fight for the empire in both world wars. They have voluntarily agreed to help in conflicts in their locale. I tend to think the New Zealanders underestimate how much their pacifist policies have not helped others… and the rest of the west both under recognizes past contributions and thoughts…

But how much does New Zealand spend on a defense budget? Per capita? Percent of its governmental budget?

quote:

Originally posted by Scott King:

quote:

Originally posted by shankspony:

quote:

Originally posted by Scott King:
Ok, so if I understand correctly:
Russia who has no exports outside natural resources because they've had no technology advances since their last Nazi engineer died is now getting and using armaments from, "The Hermit Kingdom" which they formed 100 years ago.
Additionally, Iran, who's second export outside of oil is sand is arming Russia despite their having no manufacturing or exporting of manufacturing.

And this is scary?

And Shanks wants NATO, (Me, not him,) to send more guns?

This is impressive!

If you want a combative answer more kiwis have died sorting out northern hemisphere shit than the other way round. By a long margin. Bout time you all sorted out your shit without needing us.

Believe me, that'll be more than fine, stay home from now on and I'll do the same!

No offense meant and it should go without saying you are welcome here 24/7/365, but if you bring a weapon, bring a sporting weapon, not a military. Iand we can sort out our own mischief as you do down there.

I suspect you and I are similar, one of the reasons we live where we do is to avoid the nuts. Isn't that basic human migration? I'm happy my ancestors from Scandinavia left home in 1900 for California and I'm really happy to have left California for Alaska. Inclement weather is my nemesis, not rival clans. Not the nuts.

"The Land of the Free" has been roped into Foreign Entanglements too many times to its detriment and you can even see here on the pf the roping advocates are usually those with no skin in the game.

Doc Lane and I have kids that'll be fighting age soon and so I say every time, "nah, no thanks, you go do it." I have learned from history.

I can understand that. But I think you are screwed no matter which way. Russia, Iran, NK are weakfish right now. and China is sitting by, for all intensive purposes sniffing the wind.
They wont be weak for ever and are learning from whats going on in Ukraine, and getting better. At a later stage its very foreseeable that you, Europe, and us will all be dragged into a much bigger conflict.
But right now, at this moment, Nato can give Ukraine everything it needs and No Soldiers from the US, Europe or NZ /Australia need die. If Ukraine succeeds, Russia will be dealt a catastrophic blow and Iran and NK will be back to being isolated agents.

quote:

Originally posted by shankspony:

quote:

Originally posted by Scott King:

quote:

Originally posted by shankspony:

quote:

Originally posted by Scott King:
Ok, so if I understand correctly:
Russia who has no exports outside natural resources because they've had no technology advances since their last Nazi engineer died is now getting and using armaments from, "The Hermit Kingdom" which they formed 100 years ago.
Additionally, Iran, who's second export outside of oil is sand is arming Russia despite their having no manufacturing or exporting of manufacturing.

And this is scary?

And Shanks wants NATO, (Me, not him,) to send more guns?

This is impressive!

If you want a combative answer more kiwis have died sorting out northern hemisphere shit than the other way round. By a long margin. Bout time you all sorted out your shit without needing us.

Believe me, that'll be more than fine, stay home from now on and I'll do the same!

No offense meant and it should go without saying you are welcome here 24/7/365, but if you bring a weapon, bring a sporting weapon, not a military. Iand we can sort out our own mischief as you do down there.

I suspect you and I are similar, one of the reasons we live where we do is to avoid the nuts. Isn't that basic human migration? I'm happy my ancestors from Scandinavia left home in 1900 for California and I'm really happy to have left California for Alaska. Inclement weather is my nemesis, not rival clans. Not the nuts.

"The Land of the Free" has been roped into Foreign Entanglements too many times to its detriment and you can even see here on the pf the roping advocates are usually those with no skin in the game.

Doc Lane and I have kids that'll be fighting age soon and so I say every time, "nah, no thanks, you go do it." I have learned from history.

I can understand that. But I think you are screwed no matter which way. Russia, Iran, NK are weakfish right now. and China is sitting by, for all intensive purposes sniffing the wind.
They wont be weak for ever and are learning from whats going on in Ukraine, and getting better. At a later stage its very foreseeable that you, Europe, and us will all be dragged into a much bigger conflict.
But right now, at this moment, Nato can give Ukraine everything it needs and No Soldiers from the US, Europe or NZ /Australia need die. If Ukraine succeeds, Russia will be dealt a catastrophic blow and Iran and NK will be back to being isolated agents.

Other countries are weakish?

How about America?

Europe?

Have they achieved anything by their stupid wars?

I remember that stupid idiot Cameron, PM of the UK, in Libya cheering that he has brought them "democracy"!

Or the shameful exit of America from Afghanistan?

Libya is the stepping stone for all sorts of illegal immigrants flowing into Europe.

The Brits are too stupid to stop them, because the bloody Frogs send them over anyway.

New idea is to send them to Rwanda for processing!!??

No matter how one might imagine, there is NOTHING compares to the utter stupidity of the West!

DEMOCRACY IN ACTION!

Yeah but we are talking about preventing a war where europe and america have to get physically involved aren't we. What about Russias stupid war right now? How much benefit too you is an emboldened russia and Iran?
I mean what have you guys achieved fighting the Houthis? the shipping lanes are really safe now aren't they.

quote:

Originally posted by crbutler:

quote:

Originally posted by nute:

quote:

Originally posted by crbutler:


As to the comment that the EU remains steadfast in support and will do so… if that was the case, then why would the USG need to be supplying the largest amount? The EU as a whole is as big as the US (roughly) yet has given half the military assistance (admittedly they have given more humanitarian aid and financial help like loans.)

Has the EU offered to pay the US for Ukrainian military supplies? Not that I have seen. Maybe Trump in his inept fashion was right in that the continent was not pulling its own weight in NATO, and needed to be forced to up their game?
.

The US is the single largest supplier of military kit to Ukraine . The EU tends to provide help in two ways, either direct military and financial donations from individual states, and financial aid from the EU.

The EU itself does not have an army, it’s not a country, it doesn’t have warehouses full of tanks therefore its aid can only really be financial, with which Ukraine can buy what it needs, such as US weapons. So yes, indirectly the EU may well be paying for US weapons, but it can also buy medical supplies or whatever else is needed.

If you include cash given to Ukraine by the EU and its member countries the overall value is equal to or greater than from the US.

https://www.ifw-kiel.de/topics...ine-support-tracker/

Then why aren’t the EU members of NATO stepping up the needed military help.

The EU (by that I mean both the EU member nations and the EU) has given a substantial amount of money in humanitarian aid and more so loans to the Ukrainian government.

The answer is that the EU can’t do it because they mostly neutered their defensive capabilities by making the US pay for europes defense after the fall of the USSR.

They have upped their economy at our expense because we then have to pay more for defense.

I get that the Ukrainians need help.

The EU should be paying the US for weapons transfers… not claiming that they are giving loans (which imply being paid back) that are being squandered by corruption to some extent.

My point to your argument that the US should do more and that Europe is doing “its share” is that we already have done more than our share… Saeed’s reaction shows that. He (and he’s an educated man) shows that the US’s attempts to stop conflict and human right abuses are seen as some form of imperialism. Your argument is failing in the sense that the position that the EU will not allow Ukraine to fall obviates that from a military perspective, they can’t provide what Ukraine needs by themselves. Given we are already deficit spending, we can’t do it ourselves either.

NZ does tend to try and get an out on conflict issues nowdays. They tend to want to contribute in nonleathal ways rather than pony up weapons and blood.

I do understand that the ANZAC’s came to fight for the empire in both world wars. They have voluntarily agreed to help in conflicts in their locale. I tend to think the New Zealanders underestimate how much their pacifist policies have not helped others… and the rest of the west both under recognizes past contributions and thoughts…

But how much does New Zealand spend on a defense budget? Per capita? Percent of its governmental budget?

I’m not sure if you are responding to me or to Shanks here.

If you read the link I posted that should have answered most of your points.

The first table sets out aid by country broken down into military and non military aid. It only runs to Oct last year so it’s probably out of date but add up the military portion of US aid and European countries aid and you will see that military aid from the later is at least as much as the former.

I would also suggest you look at the second chart showing aid by percentage of GDP. US 0.3%, in 30th place. Places 1-29 are all European countries.

I don’t disagree that many European states have not pulled their weight in NATO and this is a timely kick up the butt to get them to change. Equally don’t forget that since WW2 having a western facing world has economically been in the US’s interest.

quote:

Originally posted by Saeed:

quote:

Originally posted by shankspony:

quote:

Originally posted by Scott King:

quote:

Originally posted by shankspony:

quote:

Originally posted by Scott King:
Ok, so if I understand correctly:
Russia who has no exports outside natural resources because they've had no technology advances since their last Nazi engineer died is now getting and using armaments from, "The Hermit Kingdom" which they formed 100 years ago.
Additionally, Iran, who's second export outside of oil is sand is arming Russia despite their having no manufacturing or exporting of manufacturing.

And this is scary?

And Shanks wants NATO, (Me, not him,) to send more guns?

This is impressive!

If you want a combative answer more kiwis have died sorting out northern hemisphere shit than the other way round. By a long margin. Bout time you all sorted out your shit without needing us.

Believe me, that'll be more than fine, stay home from now on and I'll do the same!

No offense meant and it should go without saying you are welcome here 24/7/365, but if you bring a weapon, bring a sporting weapon, not a military. Iand we can sort out our own mischief as you do down there.

I suspect you and I are similar, one of the reasons we live where we do is to avoid the nuts. Isn't that basic human migration? I'm happy my ancestors from Scandinavia left home in 1900 for California and I'm really happy to have left California for Alaska. Inclement weather is my nemesis, not rival clans. Not the nuts.

"The Land of the Free" has been roped into Foreign Entanglements too many times to its detriment and you can even see here on the pf the roping advocates are usually those with no skin in the game.

Doc Lane and I have kids that'll be fighting age soon and so I say every time, "nah, no thanks, you go do it." I have learned from history.

I can understand that. But I think you are screwed no matter which way. Russia, Iran, NK are weakfish right now. and China is sitting by, for all intensive purposes sniffing the wind.
They wont be weak for ever and are learning from whats going on in Ukraine, and getting better. At a later stage its very foreseeable that you, Europe, and us will all be dragged into a much bigger conflict.
But right now, at this moment, Nato can give Ukraine everything it needs and No Soldiers from the US, Europe or NZ /Australia need die. If Ukraine succeeds, Russia will be dealt a catastrophic blow and Iran and NK will be back to being isolated agents.

Other countries are weakish?

How about America?

Europe?

Have they achieved anything by their stupid wars?

I remember that stupid idiot Cameron, PM of the UK, in Libya cheering that he has brought them "democracy"!

Or the shameful exit of America from Afghanistan?

Libya is the stepping stone for all sorts of illegal immigrants flowing into Europe.

The Brits are too stupid to stop them, because the bloody Frogs send them over anyway.

New idea is to send them to Rwanda for processing!!??

No matter how one might imagine, there is NOTHING compares to the utter stupidity of the West!

DEMOCRACY IN ACTION!

Saeed, I would respectfully point out that your grasp of history is a little one sided.

Your country grew out of democracy, specifically because a democratic country ( the UK) decided it couldn’t afford to pay your safety any more and said it would be withdrawing military support.

A week after the UK announced its forces would be leaving the ruler of AbuDabi offered to pay for the troops to remain but the UK didn’t accept.

A few weeks before the date of departure Iran decided it would help itself to islands in the gulf which were part of the emirates and has held them ever since.

Only days before the departure date did the emirates finally stop squabbling over who would now take charge and agree on a new leadership structure.

A non democratic government structure works for the UAE, and generally it’s been benevolent. Citizens have free education, free healthcare and a caring government, but citizens make up only 10% of the population….

Please! PLEASE!

Stop mentioning DEMOCRACY!

No country earth understands the meaning.

Especially the West in their present form!

Sediq Khan is very Democratic in London.

Humza is very Democratic in Scotland.

Since it’s a military conflict, military aid only. Loans are not aid. Economic and humanitarian help while important to the country does nothing re the battlefield.

Sure some of the individual nations have stepped up- but not significantly compared with the US.

We are being told to borrow more to pay for this.

What are the two largest EU nations doing militarily? France some, and Germany?

quote:

Originally posted by nute:

quote:

Originally posted by crbutler:

quote:

Originally posted by nute:

quote:

Originally posted by crbutler:


As to the comment that the EU remains steadfast in support and will do so… if that was the case, then why would the USG need to be supplying the largest amount? The EU as a whole is as big as the US (roughly) yet has given half the military assistance (admittedly they have given more humanitarian aid and financial help like loans.)

Has the EU offered to pay the US for Ukrainian military supplies? Not that I have seen. Maybe Trump in his inept fashion was right in that the continent was not pulling its own weight in NATO, and needed to be forced to up their game?
.

The US is the single largest supplier of military kit to Ukraine . The EU tends to provide help in two ways, either direct military and financial donations from individual states, and financial aid from the EU.

The EU itself does not have an army, it’s not a country, it doesn’t have warehouses full of tanks therefore its aid can only really be financial, with which Ukraine can buy what it needs, such as US weapons. So yes, indirectly the EU may well be paying for US weapons, but it can also buy medical supplies or whatever else is needed.

If you include cash given to Ukraine by the EU and its member countries the overall value is equal to or greater than from the US.

https://www.ifw-kiel.de/topics...ine-support-tracker/

Then why aren’t the EU members of NATO stepping up the needed military help.

The EU (by that I mean both the EU member nations and the EU) has given a substantial amount of money in humanitarian aid and more so loans to the Ukrainian government.

The answer is that the EU can’t do it because they mostly neutered their defensive capabilities by making the US pay for europes defense after the fall of the USSR.

They have upped their economy at our expense because we then have to pay more for defense.

I get that the Ukrainians need help.

The EU should be paying the US for weapons transfers… not claiming that they are giving loans (which imply being paid back) that are being squandered by corruption to some extent.

My point to your argument that the US should do more and that Europe is doing “its share” is that we already have done more than our share… Saeed’s reaction shows that. He (and he’s an educated man) shows that the US’s attempts to stop conflict and human right abuses are seen as some form of imperialism. Your argument is failing in the sense that the position that the EU will not allow Ukraine to fall obviates that from a military perspective, they can’t provide what Ukraine needs by themselves. Given we are already deficit spending, we can’t do it ourselves either.

NZ does tend to try and get an out on conflict issues nowdays. They tend to want to contribute in nonleathal ways rather than pony up weapons and blood.

I do understand that the ANZAC’s came to fight for the empire in both world wars. They have voluntarily agreed to help in conflicts in their locale. I tend to think the New Zealanders underestimate how much their pacifist policies have not helped others… and the rest of the west both under recognizes past contributions and thoughts…

But how much does New Zealand spend on a defense budget? Per capita? Percent of its governmental budget?

I’m not sure if you are responding to me or to Shanks here.

If you read the link I posted that should have answered most of your points.

The first table sets out aid by country broken down into military and non military aid. It only runs to Oct last year so it’s probably out of date but add up the military portion of US aid and European countries aid and you will see that military aid from the later is at least as much as the former.

I would also suggest you look at the second chart showing aid by percentage of GDP. US 0.3%, in 30th place. Places 1-29 are all European countries.

I don’t disagree that many European states have not pulled their weight in NATO and this is a timely kick up the butt to get them to change. Equally don’t forget that since WW2 having a western facing world has economically been in the US’s interest.

quote:

Originally posted by nute:


I’m not sure if you are responding to me or to Shanks here.

If you read the link I posted that should have answered most of your points.

The first table sets out aid by country broken down into military and non military aid. It only runs to Oct last year so it’s probably out of date but add up the military portion of US aid and European countries aid and you will see that military aid from the later is at least as much as the former.

I would also suggest you look at the second chart showing aid by percentage of GDP. US 0.3%, in 30th place. Places 1-29 are all European countries.

I don’t disagree that many European states have not pulled their weight in NATO and this is a timely kick up the butt to get them to change. Equally don’t forget that since WW2 having a western facing world has economically been in the US’s interest.

Oh come now! The now "western facing world" had a choice? What exactly did the communists or the fascists have to offer that was more attractive?

American manufacturing was growing exponentially before and not in relation to either world war, the Model T being the easy example. Natural resource extraction was booming as well as agriculture. Both sides of my family farmed in California pre WW1 and did quite well. On my father's side today some are still farming the same land for ore than the last 100 years and prosper.

Even if victorious, The Axis had nothing to offer the world. Russia had less than nothing to offer. The path, the eyes, the migration of humanity was heading away from Europe and Asia. Victory in Europe in 1945 was great, but North American growth and success was inevitable.

Umm. No.

If the US had not gotten involved in WWI, you have a point, but more and more sub sinking would have happened as we had bet on the allies and were in a position that our economy would break if the Kaiser won… our banks and industry had been heavily selling to the Brit’s and France.

WWII you are even more off.

The Nazis (and to a lesser extent the Japanese) made a fetish of science as long as it was useful to the government.

The Nazis would have had nuclear weapons and ICBM’s while we squabbled over if we needed a new fighter plane, or if the P38 was adequate if we had somehow stayed out of the war… and Hitler or Goering or (worst case) Heydrich would have certainly used these to get rid of our “jew loving” democracy.

We have good reason to try and intervene before a problem gets too big… but our government has been very poor at picking what is necessary vs. what is just best for the current government.

quote:

Originally posted by Scott King:

quote:

Originally posted by nute:


I’m not sure if you are responding to me or to Shanks here.

If you read the link I posted that should have answered most of your points.

The first table sets out aid by country broken down into military and non military aid. It only runs to Oct last year so it’s probably out of date but add up the military portion of US aid and European countries aid and you will see that military aid from the later is at least as much as the former.

I would also suggest you look at the second chart showing aid by percentage of GDP. US 0.3%, in 30th place. Places 1-29 are all European countries.

I don’t disagree that many European states have not pulled their weight in NATO and this is a timely kick up the butt to get them to change. Equally don’t forget that since WW2 having a western facing world has economically been in the US’s interest.

Oh come now! The now "western facing world" had a choice? What exactly did the communists or the fascists have to offer that was more attractive?

American manufacturing was growing exponentially before and not in relation to either world war, the Model T being the easy example. Natural resource extraction was booming as well as agriculture. Both sides of my family farmed in California pre WW1 and did quite well. On my father's side today some are still farming the same land for ore than the last 100 years and prosper.

Even if victorious, The Axis had nothing to offer the world. Russia had less than nothing to offer. The path, the eyes, the migration of humanity was heading away from Europe and Asia. Victory in Europe in 1945 was great, but North American growth and success was inevitable.

Not buying your speculation.

We had Oppenheimer since 1904, Einstein since 1933. We had Henry Ford and the Wright brothers.

We mass produced because we had thousands of miles of deep water ports and millions of developable acres accessed by our railroads. Then there was the citizens, educated and able to work and fight. How exactly do you think Chinese or Korean slave labor was to keep up? Russia had the slightest blip in time where it made technological and modern advances using its captured slave labor. I'll remind you we were loaning Stalin planes and tanks and we weren't in the war.

And no, I'm not suggesting we should have stayed out of either war, I am saying regardless the outcome, the world only had the choice of turning West. We didn't officially fight China and they certainly turned West instead of their godless peers. China has only succeeded by embracing Nixons handshake.

quote:

Originally posted by crbutler:
Umm. No.

If the US had not gotten involved in WWI, you have a point, but more and more sub sinking would have happened as we had bet on the allies and were in a position that our economy would break if the Kaiser won… our banks and industry had been heavily selling to the Brit’s and France.

WWII you are even more off.

The Nazis (and to a lesser extent the Japanese) made a fetish of science as long as it was useful to the government.

The Nazis would have had nuclear weapons and ICBM’s while we squabbled over if we needed a new fighter plane, or if the P38 was adequate if we had somehow stayed out of the war… and Hitler or Goering or (worst case) Heydrich would have certainly used these to get rid of our “jew loving” democracy.

We have good reason to try and intervene before a problem gets too big… but our government has been very poor at picking what is necessary vs. what is just best for the current government.

quote:

Originally posted by Scott King:

quote:

Originally posted by nute:


I’m not sure if you are responding to me or to Shanks here.

If you read the link I posted that should have answered most of your points.

The first table sets out aid by country broken down into military and non military aid. It only runs to Oct last year so it’s probably out of date but add up the military portion of US aid and European countries aid and you will see that military aid from the later is at least as much as the former.

I would also suggest you look at the second chart showing aid by percentage of GDP. US 0.3%, in 30th place. Places 1-29 are all European countries.

I don’t disagree that many European states have not pulled their weight in NATO and this is a timely kick up the butt to get them to change. Equally don’t forget that since WW2 having a western facing world has economically been in the US’s interest.

Oh come now! The now "western facing world" had a choice? What exactly did the communists or the fascists have to offer that was more attractive?

American manufacturing was growing exponentially before and not in relation to either world war, the Model T being the easy example. Natural resource extraction was booming as well as agriculture. Both sides of my family farmed in California pre WW1 and did quite well. On my father's side today some are still farming the same land for ore than the last 100 years and prosper.

Even if victorious, The Axis had nothing to offer the world. Russia had less than nothing to offer. The path, the eyes, the migration of humanity was heading away from Europe and Asia. Victory in Europe in 1945 was great, but North American growth and success was inevitable.

We also had a national emergency, a war, and substantial British assistance for the Manhattan project.

The Germans had Heisenberg and others. They had Werner von Braun.

They had the V2.

If the axis had won the war, while we might have developed the bomb eventually, the Germans would have had it first. They were willing to disregard everything for military superiority. Our rocket/space program was jump started by Nazi scientists. Our medical science was advanced by Japanese science advanced by atrocity.

Sure, long term we might have came out ahead, but probably not. You need to exist long enough to win the long game.

The communists lost because capitalism is more efficient. The USSR had more population and more natural resources than we do. In a vacuum why would they have turned into a liberal democracy? There would not have been competition.

Isolationism was tried. It didn’t work.

Again and as always, not advocating Isolationism.


Nute stipulated that the world turned to the west because of the war. No, not true, the world was already turning west and at least away from Europe and Asia. Regardless the outcome, the world would have and still does turn to the West.

We didn't build the Panama Canal because, "golly, maybe someday there'll be a use for it!" We built the Canal in 1900 because the West had to have it.

The Model T assembly line doomed our 20th century enemies along with our ports, rail and unlimited resources. The world turned west.

quote:

Originally posted by shankspony:
Yeah but we are talking about preventing a war where europe and america have to get physically involved aren't we. What about Russias stupid war right now? How much benefit too you is an emboldened russia and Iran?
I mean what have you guys achieved fighting the Houthis? the shipping lanes are really safe now aren't they.

America and NATO are the cause of this war!

Bullshit! Im always surprised that you drink the russian cool aid Saeed.

quote:

Originally posted by shankspony:
Bullshit! Im always surprised that you drink the russian cool aid Saeed.

It is astounding that a man as intelligent as Saeed could actually believe that!

quote:

Originally posted by Scott King:
Again and as always, not advocating Isolationism.


Nute stipulated that the world turned to the west because of the war. No, not true, the world was already turning west and at least away from Europe and Asia. Regardless the outcome, the world would have and still does turn to the West.

We didn't build the Panama Canal because, "golly, maybe someday there'll be a use for it!" We built the Canal in 1900 because the West had to have it.

The Model T assembly line doomed our 20th century enemies along with our ports, rail and unlimited resources. The world turned west.

"Nute stipulated that the world turned to the west because of the war." What? You are reading things into what I said that aint there Scott.

My point was that having the major economic powers as allies (and markets for your goods) and not under the Russian or German jack boot suited the US. That was it, nothing more.

But whilst you are at it Dr Butler has a point. Up to WW1 the UK was the worlds industrial power, post WW1 that passed to the US. However quite a lot of what we take for granted today came from this foggy little island. Cement, mass production of stainless steel, light bulb, TV, jet engine, tanks, torpedo, railway, ATM, World Wide Web/ website and many others.

Western capitalist nations cannot exist in isolation, we are all interdependent on each other...

quote:

Originally posted by Saeed:

quote:

Originally posted by shankspony:
Yeah but we are talking about preventing a war where europe and america have to get physically involved aren't we. What about Russias stupid war right now? How much benefit too you is an emboldened russia and Iran?
I mean what have you guys achieved fighting the Houthis? the shipping lanes are really safe now aren't they.

America and NATO are the cause of this war!

Yeah, made Russia invade its neighbour...

We built the Panama Canal principally for defensive reasons. Teddy Roosevelt was a big naval power advocate. We were developing our navy at the time, and our capability to move ships between the Atlantic and pacific oceans was critical (given we had to cover two oceans).

While the economic benefits were certainly there, it was much more defensive- and very much so that we had better be in control of it rather than one of the colonial powers.

It was not built as some benevolent gesture to the world.

quote:

Originally posted by Scott King:
Again and as always, not advocating Isolationism.


Nute stipulated that the world turned to the west because of the war. No, not true, the world was already turning west and at least away from Europe and Asia. Regardless the outcome, the world would have and still does turn to the West.

We didn't build the Panama Canal because, "golly, maybe someday there'll be a use for it!" We built the Canal in 1900 because the West had to have it.

The Model T assembly line doomed our 20th century enemies along with our ports, rail and unlimited resources. The world turned west.