You are not logged in. Please register or login.
- Topics: Active | Unanswered
- Randall Flagg
- Rep: 139
Re: Gates: NATO alliance future could be 'dim, dismal'
Whoah man. I'm not attacking you. I'm simply stating that the United States has had a bigger impact on the world than any other nation. I wasn't aware Bell invented the telephone while in Canada. He did all his work in the US. I'm not talking about individuals, just the contribution and impact of nations.
All those goods you mention Canada exporting to the US could be supplied by the US, but our own politics and policies prevent them Farmers are paid in the US to NOT grow produce. I would argue that the money the US pumps into canada far exceeds the products received, as the US is capable of providing them itself. The US could build nuclear plants to provide all domestic energy and has numerous oil reserves to include shale oil that we ignore. I want the US to be self reliant. We have the ability to be self reliant. Many other nations can't. And my whole argument revolves around other nations not being self reliant when it comes to defense and relying on the US to do it for them. I did 12 months in Iraq. Outside of some guards from Kenya at the dining facility, the only foreigners I saw while there were South Korean, British and Australian and it was the exception to the rule when they were spotted.
But I have no problem with trade. I encourage it in fact. If private companies can do something better, do it. Regardless of geographic locations. I'm simply stating that I as a taxpayer and US citizen, want the US to be more self reliant, and make the world who often condemns us, to start pulling their weight. I resent when other nations tout their social safety nets (something I oppose on philosophical grounds) as a positive, but neglect to mention their absence of a military or the cost they save for freely relying on the US.
That is where my argument stemmed from. It's not an argument about people, but nations and how some are able to live a sheltered life.
Re: Gates: NATO alliance future could be 'dim, dismal'
Europe have long been making strides to rid the whole idea of war from their public psyche. From the philosophies that bred their social policies to the society built on those ideals the collective memory of the second world war has meant a rejection of military thinking in the public domain with a quiet reliance on the US to cover their asses should the be threatened again.
People forget that if it wasn't for WW2 there wouldn't be a Europe. The entire european ideal was founded on a mindful and collective movement away from war.
Adorno's quote that there could be no poetry after Auschwitz sums up the policy there.
In reality such idealism won't float, and as such Europe relies on the states for their military support.
I don't know if I can blame them. The prospect of war of that magnitude on home soil is horrifying.
Eastern Europe is still very much in recovery from the WW2 fallout.
In honesty the US needs to keep Europe on side. Because if American EU military co-operations go out the window, Europe doesn't turn to China.
She turns to a now more publicly moderate and yet privately idealistic Russia. Ardent belief in pure Capitalism does not exist in Europe. Take a look at the bailouts of Greece Portugal and Irl. The system is in place because it profits Franco-German interests.
That's the reality and it doesn't bode well for anyone involved.
Personally. I think Germany is ready to lead Europe. If the rest of the continent would leave the past in the past modern post nazi post wall Germany could be a powerful control centre for the E.U. financially speaking it already is and as such it's only a matter of time before Germany absolves itself.
I'm not talking about individuals, just the contribution and impact of nations.
Oh come now. Let's be fair. The US has had an impact, I can't as an honest man say that it's been positive for the most part. Patriotism aside and honesty to the fore, there was a time America had the potential to not only make an impact but to make an impact for the good of the American people and her Allies. That dream was leveled with Hiroshima. We can lie to ourselves about it or we can make a conscious effort to re-instate that potential.
Anyway this is idle talk from Gates. NATO has always been weak and indecisive. There are bonds of trust in place outside NATO that it seems to do nothing but obstruct. On top of that. The last thing AMerica wants is for europe to be anything more than dependent upon it for it's survival.
As long as europe depends on America, America holds all the cards.
At this juncture however America is not in a strong position to withdraw military support. Not while Russia and the EU are on such good terms. The are many in the EU parliament who would subscribe to the immense doctrine of integrity russia represent than a blind faith in a progressively aggressive US.
- Randall Flagg
- Rep: 139
Re: Gates: NATO alliance future could be 'dim, dismal'
If you're going to dismiss the past of Germany's Nazi past, you must also be willing to dismiss the US's use of nuclear weapons 65 years ago. Afterall, compare death tolls from those bombs to German death tolls inflicted through concentration camps. Your question of course assumes the US was wrong to use those bombs. I disagree with that notion, but if you're willing to forgive one nation's wrong doing, you must be willing to forgive others.
But I agree with you that Germany should serve as the leader and example of the EU.
Re: Gates: NATO alliance future could be 'dim, dismal'
Maybe it was right, and maybe it was wrong. It happened and it's over. I'm more referencing the shift in global military thinking that would follow. In the eyes of the world America transformed from an almost Utopian country where anything was possible to a Superpower first and foremost, with the land of opportunity relegated to secondary importance. The dream was over.
- monkeychow
- Rep: 661
Re: Gates: NATO alliance future could be 'dim, dismal'
Interesting thread guys.
I'm quite ignorant about a lot of these matters.
Randall can I ask why you are philosophically opposed to social saftey nets? Would you support them if they were able to be introduced without cutting funding to millitary programs? That is, if it wasn't a situation where a country is choosing between defending itself and increasing standards of living, if a nation could have both.
Without wanting to get into the conspiracy theories...at times I wonder if we are eventually getting closer to a one world government situation to. With all our technology - it just seems the distance no longer exists for nations to be isolationist like they were - and as resources dwindle..seems to me it's either going to come down to some kind of almighty fight and there's not going to be all the cultutres left...or...there's going to have to be some kind of real cooperation developed.
I don't really know all this stuff...i'm just thinking the political situation now doesn't seem like it will exist in 100 years - at some point all the non-first world countries are going to have to catch up to standards of living and technology..and what the hell happens then.
- Randall Flagg
- Rep: 139
Re: Gates: NATO alliance future could be 'dim, dismal'
Because speaking as an American, our constitution requires we have an army and navy. Now it doesn't specify what size, and I'm all for downsizing it, but for the last 100 years or so, America has maintained a sizeable military, increasing its numbers as wars dictated. The Constitution does not call or define a social safety net. Specifically the large ones that are popular in Europe, specifcally the Scandanavian nations.
I do not believe it is the role of government to provide a quality standard of living to people. If America largely cut its spending on defense, something I'm not adamantly opposed to (though that would require a much longer debate), that doesn't mean we should then cycle the money to social welfare so every person can live a "good" life outside of employment. Those taxes would be returned to those that paid them.
The definition of poverty in America is a family in an apartment with 2 tvs, a car and air conditioning. That is without a large safety net. I fundamentally oppose redistribution of wealth, and stealing from Tom to pay Peter. I fully believe that your average American citizen is capable of attaining middle class status if they're willing to work and make good choices. For nearly every example you give me of people in poverty, I can cite you piss poor decisions that were made that led to that status. Be it a single mother with four kids who opted not to have an abortion yet continued to have unprotected sex with multiple partners, or someone who lacked job security yet chose to take out a loan many times over what their income could prudently afford.
While I empathize with those harmed by healthcare costs, our medical costs are largely due to bureacracy and lack of competition in the marketplace. Healthcare isn't a right because it stems from a service provided by regular people - individual citizens. It is not the place of the government to force people to perform services at a set cost, paid for by the collective. No other "right" exists in that manner. Rights are something that exist without contribution from others, not because of their contributions.
But this is an entirely seperate issue from the stated topic, so I don't want to derail it. And please pardon the spelling and grammatical errors.
Re: Gates: NATO alliance future could be 'dim, dismal'
All those goods you mention Canada exporting to the US could be supplied by the US, but our own politics and policies prevent them Farmers are paid in the US to NOT grow produce. I would argue that the money the US pumps into canada far exceeds the products received, as the US is capable of providing them itself.
and the US govt is going to pump in millions to energy production when they already pump millions into defense?
i hate to break it to you man but while the US peopel buy canadian produce the canadians buy american produce its called free trade..yeah it doesnt make a hell of alot of sense but it happens
also canada produces enough electricity for itself while also supplimenting the USA...big oil reserves in the west...mineral deposits up north
its what allied countries do..yeah we get the benifits of defense from the USA but also the USA gets benefits from being allied with us as well
just cuz a Canadian invented something in another country doesnt mean it wasnt a canadian that invented it ... i fail to see the logic in that argument
Canada itself is more than capable of providing for itself as well
i just dont see the point of you just spouting off and insulting my country for no good reason thats all i'm sayin, especially since it was on an unfounded accusations
Re: Gates: NATO alliance future could be 'dim, dismal'
I don't see where Randall said in your quoted post that's incorrect.
The only reason the U.S. government imports oil, produce, and other products from Canada is to CREATE free trade.
Needing free trade and creating it are two entirely different things.
The U.S. could easily pump their own oil, grow their own produce, and live self-sufficient. We choose not to, because of big business and corporate interests.
Like Randall said, U.S. farmers are paid to not grow, so much that many of them have just quit the business and moved on to other things.
Good job, the corporations finally destroyed the original American worker.
I'm sorry Neemo, but Canada NEEDS the U.S. alot more than the U.S. needs Canada. We throw business THEIR way. Not the other way around. Canada, despite a perfectly competent military, has also always hid behind the U.S. military strength.
I'm not bagging on Canada. I'm just saying that even if Canada was self-sufficient, they'd still need the U.S. miltary and power influence to throw around. We look out for Canada, because it's in our best interest to.
With that said, i'm glad to have Canada as an allie, and WISH that the U.S. had better relations with Mexico. I wish we all could buddy up, and lock down the entire North American contienent and tell the rest of the world to fuck off and their military threats to fuck off, we're minding our own business.
jmo
Re: Gates: NATO alliance future could be 'dim, dismal'
Severe splits have appeared within the Nato coalition battling Colonel Muammar Gaddafi's forces in Libya, with calls for an immediate ceasefire to halt the increasing violence and allow international aid to be delivered.
The Italian Foreign Minister Franco Frattini, whose country has mounted air attacks as part of the coalition and was regarded as a "hawk", called for an "immediate suspension" of hostilities to allow food and medical supplies to go to the capital, Tripoli, and Misrata, the rebel centre of resistance.
Amr Moussa, the head of the Arab League, who had been instrumental in securing support from states in the Middle East for Nato action, has spoken of his "deep misgivings" about civilian casualties and has also pressed for a ceasefire. The French President, Nicolas Sarkozy, is pressing for success in Libya by coalition forces to be achieved in time for him to declare "victory" on Bastille Day in Paris.
The President has urged a step-up of military and diplomatic efforts to enable him to announce a successful resolution to the conflict on France's national holiday on 14 July. The head of the RAF was told of the drive for an endgame during a visit to the Paris air show this week. Air Chief Marshal Sir Stephen Dalton has refused to comment but he is among senior allied officers aware of sense of acute urgency in the Elysée Palace, with the mission now in its third month of bombing.
It is unclear whether President Sarkozy still hopes for a total ousting of Gaddafi, the demand of France, Britain and Libya's opposition administration, or is veering towards an end to hostilities with Gaddafi's future to be decided later, a course, diplomatic sources say, his Foreign Minister, Alain Juppe, favours.
But a senior UK officer said: "Sarkozy wants to make a big announcement on Bastille Day, after the parade, and that has become something of a constant theme. The French military are under real pressure on this and, so by proxy, are we. One can't conjure up victory, but there is a timeline to all this now."
British ministers have been claiming privately that there is now much better information on Gaddafi's "hiding places", with the inference that he will face an accurate air strike. A Downing Street spokesman insisted yesterday that military campaign would continue full steam ahead.
But David Cameron has been forced to speak out after British military chiefs warned of the strains imposed by combat in both Libya and Afghanistan. The government will today announce how much the campaign has cost, a figure believed to be £200 to £250m, although Chancellor George Osborne projected only "tens of millions of pounds" when the bombing started at the end of February.
Yesterday, on television, the head of the Army, General Sir Peter Wall, cautioned that withdrawal of UK combat troops in Helmand province by 2014 needs to be "conditions-based", a reminder that away from efforts to topple Gaddafi, British forces continue to face a bloody insurgency. Days ago, Admiral Sir Mark Stanhope, the head of the Navy and the RAF's chief of operations, Air Chief Marshal Sir Simon Bryant, highlighted the problem their respective services would face if the Libyan operation went on beyond September. An agitated Mr Cameron told reporters: "There are moments when I wake up in morning and read the newspapers and I think, 'You do the fighting, I'll do the talking'."
Re: Gates: NATO alliance future could be 'dim, dismal'
An agitated Mr Cameron told reporters: "There are moments when I wake up in morning and read the newspapers and I think, 'You do the fighting, I'll do the talking'."
Jesus.
Those comments straight from the horse's mouth of the 2nd biggest power in the alliance.
After comments like that, how can anyone expect this alliance to unite and fight a major power in a crisis?
After this Libyan operation is over, I think it's time for the US to withdraw from NATO.
