Why isn't NATO working in Syria to protect the Kurds? Why is it always the US?

[Bootney Lee Farnsworth]

U.S. direction and leadership by example led to European countries joining the United States and increasing the size and strength of their military forces. Without U.S. engagement in this area it, never would have happened. The Europeans have always failed when it comes to security over the last century without the aid and support of the United States.

In 2013, the United States withdrew its last tank Units from Europe. It was the first time in over 70 years that there were no U.S. tank units in Europe. Then Russian invaded Ukraine and annexed the Crimea and parts of Eastern Ukraine. Since, then the United States has moved an entire Armored Brigade back to Europe and also positioned all the equipment for a second armored Brigade in Europe. So your wrong, there have been new U.S. troop deployments too Europe and more deployments are being studied and envisioned at the moment.

Bush never damaged NATO's unity. He in fact increased it with the Alliance performing its first out of Europe operations in its history which continue to this day.

There has NEVER been nor is there any such thing now, as an American Empire. The only people in the world to look at NATO as a threat are the Russians, Chinese, North Koreans, Iranians and non-state terrorist groups around the world. NATO threatens their ability to harass and take over various parts of the world and create havoc and instability everywhere.

The United States military and NATO military have been far more effective than any other military forces or other entities in solving the worlds problems and saving lives. Keeping the peace in Europe, preventing and deterring a Soviet/Warsaw Pact invasion, preventing World War III, saving Bosnia and Kosovo from genocide, giving Afghanistan its best government and highest standard of living in its history are just a few of the things they have accomplished.

I found you quite regularly to propose positions that are reasonable, at least defensible. The above, however, are the musings of a militaristic subject of empire - sorry to say.

Just in short to correct your misstatement on U.S. troops in Europe. I spoke about "additional troops", which would obviously mean rising troop numbers. Here's what happened during the last three decades or so:

Pointing to an armored brigade rotated in to replace other kinds of troops doesn't counter my point. Whatever, at a time when isolationism is on the rise in the U.S., and all eyes are on Europeans buckling up, expectations rise they provide for their own defense, expecting rising U.S. troop numbers in Europe would be illogical. At most, I see some legislators hinting at countering further draw-downs.

Its not about bean counting the number of military personal in Europe, but RELEVANT combat troops. The United States Armored Brigade that was sent to Europe following the Russian invasion and annexation of Crimea was not sent to replace other troops. It moved into Eastern Europe with most of its elements stationed in Poland. It was significant in that it marked the return of the first U.S. armored force to Europe since the last tank unit was foolishly withdrawn in 2013. There were only two U.S. combat brigades left in Europe at the end of 2013. A medium weight brigade with Stryker armored vehicles considered too light for heavy armored combat, stationed in southern Germany. The only other combat brigade was a light infantry airborne combat brigade stationed at Vicenza Italy. Another Armored Brigade's equipment has been pre-positioned in Eastern Europe so its troops can be moved from the United States and ready for combat on the ground in Europe within days. An armored battalion has been deployed to the Baltic States and another armored battalion has been deployed to Romania. So the number of U.S. ground combat troops in Europe has nearly doubled since the end of 2013, and more than doubled if you include the Brigade that has its pre-positioned equipment stored in Eastern Europe.

As stated before, it has been estimated that there needs to be at least 7 Brigades, most of them armored, in addition to Polish forces, to counter a Russian invasion of the Baltic States. This is NOT a time of retreat from Europe as it was prior to Russia's invasion of Ukraine in 2014. Russia's invasion of Ukraine reversed everything. Failure to deter a Russian invasion of the Baltic States, which since the Russian invasion of Ukraine, has become more likely, would lead to World War III. That is why it is imperative to increase the number of U.S. ground combat troops in Europe, in positions, where they could quickly respond to Russian aggression. The only way an adequate force will be deployed to defend the Baltic states is if the United States increases the number of ground combat brigades it has stationed in Europe. What has been done since the Russian invasion of Ukraine in 2014 is a start, but it is not enough.

The Russian threat is not at all being deemphasized in congress. There is far more support in congress today for increasing the number of ground combat brigades in Europe than at any time in the last five years.

Its far easier to defeat the Russian military if we keep the sanctions on Russia instead of helping them re-build and develop new classes of weapons, such as hyper-sonic missiles. Don't fight the last war. A quick first strike can eliminate a lot of ground forces (Maginot Line Redux?). Retaliation is always the name of the game with Russia. What part of "we can't afford to keep troops in the EU don't you understand?" The EU needs to step up, 70 years of the US paying to protect the EU is over.

An ‘Arms Race in Speed’: Hypersonic Weapons and the Changing Calculus of Battle | Arms Control Association

What the United States cannot afford to have happen is World War III. Every last dime must be spent preventing that from happening. There are no short cuts, or super weapons that will do that. Trumps stupid tax cut for the rich would have been more than enough to pay for U.S. defense spending related to Europe. The fucking rich don't need a trillion dollar tax cut. Those taxes can and should be used to deploy more U.S. combat Brigades to Europe.

What the United States cannot afford to have happen is World War III. Every last dime must be spent preventing that from happening.

Of whose money?

If WWIII breaks out, who stands to lose the most?

It won't be the U.S. So, why the FUCK do we have to spend even ONE SINGLE DIME???

NOBODY would DARE fuck with the U.S. on our soil, unless they plan on bringing a 10 million man army. One of the many benefits to having an armed citizenry.

.

 

[U2Edge]

U.S. direction and leadership by example led to European countries joining the United States and increasing the size and strength of their military forces. Without U.S. engagement in this area it, never would have happened. The Europeans have always failed when it comes to security over the last century without the aid and support of the United States.

In 2013, the United States withdrew its last tank Units from Europe. It was the first time in over 70 years that there were no U.S. tank units in Europe. Then Russian invaded Ukraine and annexed the Crimea and parts of Eastern Ukraine. Since, then the United States has moved an entire Armored Brigade back to Europe and also positioned all the equipment for a second armored Brigade in Europe. So your wrong, there have been new U.S. troop deployments too Europe and more deployments are being studied and envisioned at the moment.

Bush never damaged NATO's unity. He in fact increased it with the Alliance performing its first out of Europe operations in its history which continue to this day.

There has NEVER been nor is there any such thing now, as an American Empire. The only people in the world to look at NATO as a threat are the Russians, Chinese, North Koreans, Iranians and non-state terrorist groups around the world. NATO threatens their ability to harass and take over various parts of the world and create havoc and instability everywhere.

The United States military and NATO military have been far more effective than any other military forces or other entities in solving the worlds problems and saving lives. Keeping the peace in Europe, preventing and deterring a Soviet/Warsaw Pact invasion, preventing World War III, saving Bosnia and Kosovo from genocide, giving Afghanistan its best government and highest standard of living in its history are just a few of the things they have accomplished.

I found you quite regularly to propose positions that are reasonable, at least defensible. The above, however, are the musings of a militaristic subject of empire - sorry to say.

Just in short to correct your misstatement on U.S. troops in Europe. I spoke about "additional troops", which would obviously mean rising troop numbers. Here's what happened during the last three decades or so:

Pointing to an armored brigade rotated in to replace other kinds of troops doesn't counter my point. Whatever, at a time when isolationism is on the rise in the U.S., and all eyes are on Europeans buckling up, expectations rise they provide for their own defense, expecting rising U.S. troop numbers in Europe would be illogical. At most, I see some legislators hinting at countering further draw-downs.

Its not about bean counting the number of military personal in Europe, but RELEVANT combat troops. The United States Armored Brigade that was sent to Europe following the Russian invasion and annexation of Crimea was not sent to replace other troops. It moved into Eastern Europe with most of its elements stationed in Poland. It was significant in that it marked the return of the first U.S. armored force to Europe since the last tank unit was foolishly withdrawn in 2013. There were only two U.S. combat brigades left in Europe at the end of 2013. A medium weight brigade with Stryker armored vehicles considered too light for heavy armored combat, stationed in southern Germany. The only other combat brigade was a light infantry airborne combat brigade stationed at Vicenza Italy. Another Armored Brigade's equipment has been pre-positioned in Eastern Europe so its troops can be moved from the United States and ready for combat on the ground in Europe within days. An armored battalion has been deployed to the Baltic States and another armored battalion has been deployed to Romania. So the number of U.S. ground combat troops in Europe has nearly doubled since the end of 2013, and more than doubled if you include the Brigade that has its pre-positioned equipment stored in Eastern Europe.

As stated before, it has been estimated that there needs to be at least 7 Brigades, most of them armored, in addition to Polish forces, to counter a Russian invasion of the Baltic States. This is NOT a time of retreat from Europe as it was prior to Russia's invasion of Ukraine in 2014. Russia's invasion of Ukraine reversed everything. Failure to deter a Russian invasion of the Baltic States, which since the Russian invasion of Ukraine, has become more likely, would lead to World War III. That is why it is imperative to increase the number of U.S. ground combat troops in Europe, in positions, where they could quickly respond to Russian aggression. The only way an adequate force will be deployed to defend the Baltic states is if the United States increases the number of ground combat brigades it has stationed in Europe. What has been done since the Russian invasion of Ukraine in 2014 is a start, but it is not enough.

The Russian threat is not at all being deemphasized in congress. There is far more support in congress today for increasing the number of ground combat brigades in Europe than at any time in the last five years.

Its far easier to defeat the Russian military if we keep the sanctions on Russia instead of helping them re-build and develop new classes of weapons, such as hyper-sonic missiles. Don't fight the last war. A quick first strike can eliminate a lot of ground forces (Maginot Line Redux?). Retaliation is always the name of the game with Russia. What part of "we can't afford to keep troops in the EU don't you understand?" The EU needs to step up, 70 years of the US paying to protect the EU is over.

An ‘Arms Race in Speed’: Hypersonic Weapons and the Changing Calculus of Battle | Arms Control Association

What the United States cannot afford to have happen is World War III. Every last dime must be spent preventing that from happening. There are no short cuts, or super weapons that will do that. Trumps stupid tax cut for the rich would have been more than enough to pay for U.S. defense spending related to Europe. The fucking rich don't need a trillion dollar tax cut. Those taxes can and should be used to deploy more U.S. combat Brigades to Europe.

Why would we invade Europe?

The United States is helping DEFEND Europe FROM invasion.

 

[Bootney Lee Farnsworth]

I found you quite regularly to propose positions that are reasonable, at least defensible. The above, however, are the musings of a militaristic subject of empire - sorry to say.

Just in short to correct your misstatement on U.S. troops in Europe. I spoke about "additional troops", which would obviously mean rising troop numbers. Here's what happened during the last three decades or so:

Pointing to an armored brigade rotated in to replace other kinds of troops doesn't counter my point. Whatever, at a time when isolationism is on the rise in the U.S., and all eyes are on Europeans buckling up, expectations rise they provide for their own defense, expecting rising U.S. troop numbers in Europe would be illogical. At most, I see some legislators hinting at countering further draw-downs.

Its not about bean counting the number of military personal in Europe, but RELEVANT combat troops. The United States Armored Brigade that was sent to Europe following the Russian invasion and annexation of Crimea was not sent to replace other troops. It moved into Eastern Europe with most of its elements stationed in Poland. It was significant in that it marked the return of the first U.S. armored force to Europe since the last tank unit was foolishly withdrawn in 2013. There were only two U.S. combat brigades left in Europe at the end of 2013. A medium weight brigade with Stryker armored vehicles considered too light for heavy armored combat, stationed in southern Germany. The only other combat brigade was a light infantry airborne combat brigade stationed at Vicenza Italy. Another Armored Brigade's equipment has been pre-positioned in Eastern Europe so its troops can be moved from the United States and ready for combat on the ground in Europe within days. An armored battalion has been deployed to the Baltic States and another armored battalion has been deployed to Romania. So the number of U.S. ground combat troops in Europe has nearly doubled since the end of 2013, and more than doubled if you include the Brigade that has its pre-positioned equipment stored in Eastern Europe.

As stated before, it has been estimated that there needs to be at least 7 Brigades, most of them armored, in addition to Polish forces, to counter a Russian invasion of the Baltic States. This is NOT a time of retreat from Europe as it was prior to Russia's invasion of Ukraine in 2014. Russia's invasion of Ukraine reversed everything. Failure to deter a Russian invasion of the Baltic States, which since the Russian invasion of Ukraine, has become more likely, would lead to World War III. That is why it is imperative to increase the number of U.S. ground combat troops in Europe, in positions, where they could quickly respond to Russian aggression. The only way an adequate force will be deployed to defend the Baltic states is if the United States increases the number of ground combat brigades it has stationed in Europe. What has been done since the Russian invasion of Ukraine in 2014 is a start, but it is not enough.

The Russian threat is not at all being deemphasized in congress. There is far more support in congress today for increasing the number of ground combat brigades in Europe than at any time in the last five years.

Its far easier to defeat the Russian military if we keep the sanctions on Russia instead of helping them re-build and develop new classes of weapons, such as hyper-sonic missiles. Don't fight the last war. A quick first strike can eliminate a lot of ground forces (Maginot Line Redux?). Retaliation is always the name of the game with Russia. What part of "we can't afford to keep troops in the EU don't you understand?" The EU needs to step up, 70 years of the US paying to protect the EU is over.

An ‘Arms Race in Speed’: Hypersonic Weapons and the Changing Calculus of Battle | Arms Control Association

What the United States cannot afford to have happen is World War III. Every last dime must be spent preventing that from happening. There are no short cuts, or super weapons that will do that. Trumps stupid tax cut for the rich would have been more than enough to pay for U.S. defense spending related to Europe. The fucking rich don't need a trillion dollar tax cut. Those taxes can and should be used to deploy more U.S. combat Brigades to Europe.

Why would we invade Europe?

The United States is helping DEFEND Europe FROM invasion.

And what is EUROPE doing about it?

We should not ever have to pay a single dime for Europe's defense. FUCK THOSE ASSHOLES. They should pay us. In fact, I want the rest of the world to pay off our National Debt immediately, or we really start wrecking shop. They ALL owe us.

.

 

[U2Edge]

U.S. direction and leadership by example led to European countries joining the United States and increasing the size and strength of their military forces. Without U.S. engagement in this area it, never would have happened. The Europeans have always failed when it comes to security over the last century without the aid and support of the United States.

In 2013, the United States withdrew its last tank Units from Europe. It was the first time in over 70 years that there were no U.S. tank units in Europe. Then Russian invaded Ukraine and annexed the Crimea and parts of Eastern Ukraine. Since, then the United States has moved an entire Armored Brigade back to Europe and also positioned all the equipment for a second armored Brigade in Europe. So your wrong, there have been new U.S. troop deployments too Europe and more deployments are being studied and envisioned at the moment.

Bush never damaged NATO's unity. He in fact increased it with the Alliance performing its first out of Europe operations in its history which continue to this day.

There has NEVER been nor is there any such thing now, as an American Empire. The only people in the world to look at NATO as a threat are the Russians, Chinese, North Koreans, Iranians and non-state terrorist groups around the world. NATO threatens their ability to harass and take over various parts of the world and create havoc and instability everywhere.

The United States military and NATO military have been far more effective than any other military forces or other entities in solving the worlds problems and saving lives. Keeping the peace in Europe, preventing and deterring a Soviet/Warsaw Pact invasion, preventing World War III, saving Bosnia and Kosovo from genocide, giving Afghanistan its best government and highest standard of living in its history are just a few of the things they have accomplished.

I found you quite regularly to propose positions that are reasonable, at least defensible. The above, however, are the musings of a militaristic subject of empire - sorry to say.

Just in short to correct your misstatement on U.S. troops in Europe. I spoke about "additional troops", which would obviously mean rising troop numbers. Here's what happened during the last three decades or so:

Pointing to an armored brigade rotated in to replace other kinds of troops doesn't counter my point. Whatever, at a time when isolationism is on the rise in the U.S., and all eyes are on Europeans buckling up, expectations rise they provide for their own defense, expecting rising U.S. troop numbers in Europe would be illogical. At most, I see some legislators hinting at countering further draw-downs.

Its not about bean counting the number of military personal in Europe, but RELEVANT combat troops. The United States Armored Brigade that was sent to Europe following the Russian invasion and annexation of Crimea was not sent to replace other troops. It moved into Eastern Europe with most of its elements stationed in Poland. It was significant in that it marked the return of the first U.S. armored force to Europe since the last tank unit was foolishly withdrawn in 2013. There were only two U.S. combat brigades left in Europe at the end of 2013. A medium weight brigade with Stryker armored vehicles considered too light for heavy armored combat, stationed in southern Germany. The only other combat brigade was a light infantry airborne combat brigade stationed at Vicenza Italy. Another Armored Brigade's equipment has been pre-positioned in Eastern Europe so its troops can be moved from the United States and ready for combat on the ground in Europe within days. An armored battalion has been deployed to the Baltic States and another armored battalion has been deployed to Romania. So the number of U.S. ground combat troops in Europe has nearly doubled since the end of 2013, and more than doubled if you include the Brigade that has its pre-positioned equipment stored in Eastern Europe.

As stated before, it has been estimated that there needs to be at least 7 Brigades, most of them armored, in addition to Polish forces, to counter a Russian invasion of the Baltic States. This is NOT a time of retreat from Europe as it was prior to Russia's invasion of Ukraine in 2014. Russia's invasion of Ukraine reversed everything. Failure to deter a Russian invasion of the Baltic States, which since the Russian invasion of Ukraine, has become more likely, would lead to World War III. That is why it is imperative to increase the number of U.S. ground combat troops in Europe, in positions, where they could quickly respond to Russian aggression. The only way an adequate force will be deployed to defend the Baltic states is if the United States increases the number of ground combat brigades it has stationed in Europe. What has been done since the Russian invasion of Ukraine in 2014 is a start, but it is not enough.

The Russian threat is not at all being deemphasized in congress. There is far more support in congress today for increasing the number of ground combat brigades in Europe than at any time in the last five years.

Its far easier to defeat the Russian military if we keep the sanctions on Russia instead of helping them re-build and develop new classes of weapons, such as hyper-sonic missiles. Don't fight the last war. A quick first strike can eliminate a lot of ground forces (Maginot Line Redux?). Retaliation is always the name of the game with Russia. What part of "we can't afford to keep troops in the EU don't you understand?" The EU needs to step up, 70 years of the US paying to protect the EU is over.

An ‘Arms Race in Speed’: Hypersonic Weapons and the Changing Calculus of Battle | Arms Control Association

What the United States cannot afford to have happen is World War III. Every last dime must be spent preventing that from happening. There are no short cuts, or super weapons that will do that. Trumps stupid tax cut for the rich would have been more than enough to pay for U.S. defense spending related to Europe. The fucking rich don't need a trillion dollar tax cut. Those taxes can and should be used to deploy more U.S. combat Brigades to Europe.

What the United States cannot afford to have happen is World War III. Every last dime must be spent preventing that from happening.

Of whose money?

If WWIII breaks out, who stands to lose the most?

It won't be the U.S. So, why the FUCK do we have to spend even ONE SINGLE DIME???

NOBODY would DARE fuck with the U.S. on our soil, unless they plan on bringing a 10 million man army. One of the many benefits to having an armed citizenry.

.

If a conventional war in Europe breaks out, it could escalate to a nuclear war. It would only take the Russians 30 minutes to send over 500 1 megaton nuclear warheads that would destroy the United States and lead to the deaths of 300 million Americans in less than 12 months. The UNITED STATES COULD LOSE EVERYTHING, LITERALLY! You and everyone you know will likely be killed either by the initial blast/heat of the warheads, or later by radiation, and finally starvation.

Keeping U.S. troops in Europe to help defend it and deter a Russian invasion makes the chance of that terrible nightmare happening, far less likely.

 

[U2Edge]

Its not about bean counting the number of military personal in Europe, but RELEVANT combat troops. The United States Armored Brigade that was sent to Europe following the Russian invasion and annexation of Crimea was not sent to replace other troops. It moved into Eastern Europe with most of its elements stationed in Poland. It was significant in that it marked the return of the first U.S. armored force to Europe since the last tank unit was foolishly withdrawn in 2013. There were only two U.S. combat brigades left in Europe at the end of 2013. A medium weight brigade with Stryker armored vehicles considered too light for heavy armored combat, stationed in southern Germany. The only other combat brigade was a light infantry airborne combat brigade stationed at Vicenza Italy. Another Armored Brigade's equipment has been pre-positioned in Eastern Europe so its troops can be moved from the United States and ready for combat on the ground in Europe within days. An armored battalion has been deployed to the Baltic States and another armored battalion has been deployed to Romania. So the number of U.S. ground combat troops in Europe has nearly doubled since the end of 2013, and more than doubled if you include the Brigade that has its pre-positioned equipment stored in Eastern Europe.

As stated before, it has been estimated that there needs to be at least 7 Brigades, most of them armored, in addition to Polish forces, to counter a Russian invasion of the Baltic States. This is NOT a time of retreat from Europe as it was prior to Russia's invasion of Ukraine in 2014. Russia's invasion of Ukraine reversed everything. Failure to deter a Russian invasion of the Baltic States, which since the Russian invasion of Ukraine, has become more likely, would lead to World War III. That is why it is imperative to increase the number of U.S. ground combat troops in Europe, in positions, where they could quickly respond to Russian aggression. The only way an adequate force will be deployed to defend the Baltic states is if the United States increases the number of ground combat brigades it has stationed in Europe. What has been done since the Russian invasion of Ukraine in 2014 is a start, but it is not enough.

The Russian threat is not at all being deemphasized in congress. There is far more support in congress today for increasing the number of ground combat brigades in Europe than at any time in the last five years.

Its far easier to defeat the Russian military if we keep the sanctions on Russia instead of helping them re-build and develop new classes of weapons, such as hyper-sonic missiles. Don't fight the last war. A quick first strike can eliminate a lot of ground forces (Maginot Line Redux?). Retaliation is always the name of the game with Russia. What part of "we can't afford to keep troops in the EU don't you understand?" The EU needs to step up, 70 years of the US paying to protect the EU is over.

An ‘Arms Race in Speed’: Hypersonic Weapons and the Changing Calculus of Battle | Arms Control Association

What the United States cannot afford to have happen is World War III. Every last dime must be spent preventing that from happening. There are no short cuts, or super weapons that will do that. Trumps stupid tax cut for the rich would have been more than enough to pay for U.S. defense spending related to Europe. The fucking rich don't need a trillion dollar tax cut. Those taxes can and should be used to deploy more U.S. combat Brigades to Europe.

Why would we invade Europe?

The United States is helping DEFEND Europe FROM invasion.

And what is EUROPE doing about it?

We should not ever have to pay a single dime for Europe's defense. FUCK THOSE ASSHOLES. They should pay us. In fact, I want the rest of the world to pay off our National Debt immediately, or we really start wrecking shop. They ALL owe us.

.

Its not that type of relationship. The NATO alliance is not a business deal. Its not an act of charity either. The United States defends Europe because are survival as a nation depends on us doing so.

 

[Billy_Kinetta]

SIS fighters have escaped the prisons they were contained in and are regrouping with other ISIS forces that were in hiding.

So blow up the fucking prisons before they do. Is there a problem here?

That would be genocide, dope.

Ummm ... no.

Sure, dope.

Explain why. We're all waiting.

You must first offer a positive.

 

[kyzr]

Syria is not a member of NATO and if NATO sent troops, they would side with Turkey who is a NATO member. Who would NATO troops be fighting? Surely not the Kurds as they are US allies as is Turkey. If NATO troops went to Syria they would be bogged down for years. Besides the NATO countries wouldn't be willing to spend lives and treasure in another endless war. It's a complicated situation made by the unwanted presence of Turkey and Russia. This has turned into a matter that the UN was created to handle. Let the UN handle it and bring US troops home.

If NATO sent troops to Syria they would be fighting ISIS and keeping Turkey out of Syria, as well as keeping Assad and Russia out of the Kurdish areas. Isn't preventing a genocide of Kurds a worthy NATO mission?

If NATO won't do "endless wars" why should the US send troops to the ME to do "endless wars"? Trump is right to us pull out of Syria. I hope pulling US troops home from the EU and saving $24b a year is next on the agenda.

The UN can't do anything, never could. Talk is cheap. Turkey would just stonewall like Baghdad Bob in the old days.
Nothing is ever accomplished except by military force. In this case the extermination of Kurds.

Stop. Just stop, dope.
You obviously have no understanding of NATO or their mission.

NATO missions??
How about that NATO mission in Afghanistan?
International Security Assistance Force - Wikipedia

How about that "NATO" mission in Syria? aka UK & France in Syria? Call it NATO or not?
Foreign involvement in the Syrian Civil War - Wikipedia

IMHO the EU NATO members have more skin in the game in Syria than the US military does. We wanted to eliminate the ISIS caliphate, mission accomplished, until Turkey and Erdogan upset the apple-cart.
Who gets to clean up the ISIS and migrant mess now? Hint: not the USA.

NATO is a strategic alliance for the common defense of it's members. They are not a humanitarian or peacekeeping force.

Syria is not a member, dope.

Not saying NATO is a humanitarian force.
My point was that Trump is being criticized for pulling 1000 troops out of Syria, its not our job. Why isn't NATO helping keep a lid on Syria?
NATO was in Afghanistan. NATO was in Syria. Its not in the US interest to keep the ME from migrating into the EU. If Syria and ISIS and Turkey and the Kurds and Iran start a war, who gets impacted more, the EU or the USA?

 

[kyzr]

Responding paragraph by paragraph:
p1: The largest threat to the US is the National Debt of $22T, so says the Joint Chiefs of Staff.
Defense.gov News Article: Debt is Biggest Threat to National Security, Chairman Says
So saving $24b a year for keeping US troops in the EU is what the US needs to do.
Agree NATO helped defeat ISIS, but left Syria to its fate in 2018.

p2. NATO withdrew from Syria about 1-year ago to leave about 1,000 US troops there with the Kurds. Why didn't NATO keep forces there? Did they know that Erdogan was planning an invasion of Syria? If Erdogan stops the invasion at 35km, to create his border "buffer zone" is that enough to create stability? Erdogan said that he was invading Syria with or without US troops present:
Turkey Warns the U.S. Not to Interfere With Syria Invasion: 'No Power Can Stop Us'

p3: I base my opinion of the Russian economy on its GDP, not "purchasing power" you need to compare apples to apples.
Russia GDP | 2019 | Data | Chart | Calendar | Forecast | News
Russia's economy is between Canada's and South Korea's. About 12th in the world if you call the EU as one economy.

p4: Agree that military power is a different metric. Russia's military is way better than its economy, but not a match for NATO.

p5: Trump is not taking US casualties for the Kurds. If NATO was present in some force Erdogan might have 2nd thoughts, but who knows?

p6 to end: Trump said today that the US is not involved in the Syrian civil war. The US will not go to war over Turkey's border issues with the Kurds. Trump was elected to get the US out of the ME and save $Trillions and thousands of US lives. The days of the US trying to be the world's cop are over.

PART: 1. The National debt as a percentage of GDP was much higher at the end of the World War II than it is now. As in World War II, United States national security is far more important than the National Debt. So this General is wrong. Successfully defending Europe is vital to the survival of the United States and has been for over 75 years now. The United States troop levels in Europe must at least be doubled if not tripled in order to deter a possible Russian invasion of the Baltic States in the future.

PART: 2 Erdogan was saying such things before Trump even ran for President. Turkey on its own would be unsuccessful in any invasion of Syria with U.S. troops on the ground and air power there. As long as the United States said no to Turkey and kept the right complement of troops air assets nearby, there is no way in hell Turkey would have risked an invasion, no matter what comes out of Istanbul BOB's mouth.

PART 3. To correctly estimate GDP, you must adjust for purchasing power parity, otherwise the figure is NOT accurate. Russia has the 6th largest economy on the planet and an economy almost the size of Germany and nearly double the size of Italy. You can look the figures for all countries at the CIA WORLD FACTBOOK online. The vast majority of Economist use the GDP figures that are adjusted for purchasing power. It is the most accurate estimate of the size of the economy. Otherwise, your pretending that the same $10 dollar haircut in the United States is worth 5 times as much as the same $2 dollar haircut in India. Both haircuts are the same value from a TRUE productivity standpoint. That's what GDP is estimating, productivity within a given year. In order to do that accurately, you must adjust for purchasing power parity.

PART 4. NATO cannot adequately defend against a Russian invasion of the Baltic States currently. Its estimate that 7 Brigades, most of them heavy armor, need to be deployed there or nearby in addition to Polish forces in order to successfully defend against a Russian invasion.

Russia has nuclear parity with NATO with its huge arsenal. It also has very large conventional forces and is introducing new modern Tanks, Armored Personal Carriers, Artillery and Anti-Aircraft missiles and artillery that are either better or equivalent to NATO's equipment in these areas. Russia has more troops concentrated in areas that are near the Baltic States. They have performed training exercises recently with up to 100,000 troops involved. NATO training exercises since the Cold War have only involved at most 5,000 to 10,000 troops.

Another weakness of NATO is that most of the United States forces are stationed across the ocean back home and other important NATO forces are stationed in places that are far from where the Baltic States are along Russia's border.

Defending the 3 Baltic States is a challenging task made more difficult because of Russia's Kaliningrad region separated from Russia by the Baltic States. Russian forces in Belarus and Kaliningrad could easily cut off the only NATO land route to the Baltic States through Poland into Lithuania.

NATO has serious problems when it comes to defending the Baltic States, and awareness of these problems took on heightened concerned after the Russian invasion and annexation of Crimea from Ukraine in 2014. As well as covert Russian military actions in Eastern Ukraine that has resulted in essentially the annexation of half of Ukraine's Donetsk region and half of its Lugansk region in eastern Ukraine.

PART 5. If TRUMP had said no to any Turkish invasion and kept U.S. troops in place, the north eastern area of Syria where the Kurds live would still be a stable area right now. ISIS would still be locked up or hiding with Kurdish and American forces pursuing those individuals not captured yet. There would be no Turkish invasion, no killing of innocent civilians that has been seen the last few days either.

PART 6. The United States still had vital national security interest in North East Syria because of ISIS members still being the run there as well as large detention camps containing ISIS fighters and their families. Trump just let ISIS out of its box and now there the risk that ISIS will return in force. The United States was not involved in the Syrian civil War. It was helping the Kurds defeat ISIS and preventing other forces from entering the area and doing so successfully.

Turkey would NOT go to war with the United States over its alleged border issues with the Kurds in Syria. We know this given what has happened for the past several years. MATTIS resigned because Trump wanted to get out. GENERAL MATTIS knew it was a stupid thing to do, and he is being proved right at the moment.

The overwhelming majority of the United States House of Representatives, U.S. Senate and U.S. military is AGAINST what Trump has done in Syria. Most Republicans in the House and Senate are against what Trump has done in Syria.

Responding paragraph by paragraph:
p1: The "Chiefs of Staff" are the top US military commanders, not one "general". The $22T Debt is a danger that we can't ignore. The military knows that their budget will be slashed if we don't get our finances in order. We can't afford to defend the EU, the EU needs to step up and defend itself. The US is there via NATO if ever needed.

p2: The US had 1000 troops there, but were not battle troops but coordinators, Turkey invaded with a massive force that was massing for months. The 1,000 US troops there could not stop that big a force of modern military hardware.
2019 Turkish offensive into north-eastern Syria - Wikipedia

p3: We disagree on Russia's economy. If the EU keeps buying Russian gas, they can deal with the Russian hardware.

p4: If the EU can't stop a Russian invasion now, then they better spend more on their militaries. Only 7 EU countries are meeting their NATO military spending commitments.

p5: Wrong. Ergdogan said the invasion was on with or without US troops present. Trump doesn't waste US lives.

p6: ISIS is now officially the problem of Turkey, the Kurds, Assad, Iraq and the EU. The US withdrew from Syria. Good luck!
Congress is just sucking for shekels, the PACs are lobbying frantically to keep a lid on Syria. Trump wisely said, "we're done in Syria"

PART 1: As stated before, U.S. National debt as a percentage of GDP is lower than it was at the end of World War II. The national debt although a problem then, did not endanger the United States in 1945 and nor does it now. We know this based on economic history. Again, National Security comes BEFORE anything else. Defending Europe is vital to the Survival of the United States. The breakout of war in Europe with Russia could potentially destroy the entire planet within hours. The national debt while a problem, is light years away from being as serious as that.

PART 2: Your forgetting Kurdish troops that would be fighting with U.S. troops. Your also forgetting that the United States has several ground assets that it could deploy into Syria within days. There is an entire Airborne Combat Brigade in Vicenza Italy, 15,000 U.S. combat troops, that could be deployed by air to north eastern Syria within 72 hours.

Oh and the mighty Turkish invasion that you talk of has only been able to advance at its deepest, 15 kilometers into Syria at this point. Plus, half of the forces that Turkey sent in are not even Turkish troops, but Arab militias. So the idea that the United States could not stop Turkey is laughably false.

PART 3: Sorry, but you'll never understand the real economic situation in various countries around the world, until you stop using inaccurate statistics that don't adjust for purchasing power parity.

PART 4: The EU will only increase its force levels when the U.S. increases its forces levels in Europe. Without U.S. leadership and support, Europe will fall apart as it did in World War I and World War II. The United States can't afford to let that happen again. The United States is the glue that holds the European alliance and defense of Europe together.

PART 5: Ergdogan has being saying that for years. The Turkish military would still be sitting north of the Turkish border in the Kurdish area if Trump had not given the green light and pulled out U.S. troops. That's why 90% of congress has condemned what Trump has done. That's why the U.S. military is not supportive of Trump's policy. General Mattis new this was a stupid idea which is why he resigned. TRUMPS actions have endangered U.S. lives EVERYWHERE. ISIS fighters have escaped the prisons they were contained in and are regrouping with other ISIS forces that were in hiding.

PART 6: ISIS is a international terrorist organization. The idea that they are someone elses problem is part of the stupidity that help to KILL 3,000 U.S. citizens on September 11, 2001.

p1: Defending the EU is vital to the survival of the EU. So they better get busy beefing up their militaries. The National Debt is an immediate problem that needs attention, Medicare will be bankrupt in 2026, and SS will be insolvent in 2034. Russia is the EU's problem, China is the USA's problem.

p2: What part of Trump is not putting US lives into the Syrian civil war, or in front of the Turkish invasion don't you understand?
Just not happening, period. Deal with Trump's decision.

p3. GDP in dollars is a base level econometric metric, purchasing power varies all over the world, its anything you want it to be. Point being that Russia's economy is not as powerful as China's.

p4: The US has bigger fish to fry than Russia. The EU needs to sink or swim on its own. NATO is a powerful deterrent if its kept modern and fully mission capable, so get busy.

p5.We disagree on Erdogan's actions. He said he's attacking Syria, get the US troops out of the way. Not to remove US troops would have been negligence. The US has done more than enough in Syria to defeat ISIS. Now it's up to others to deal with that situation.

p6. The US has much better security now than before 9/11. Vetting is better, borders are better. Facial recognition, voice recognition, DNA matching, Homeland Security, the NSA, the FBI, ICE, and nationwide security cameras help keep the US safe.
How Surveillance Cameras Evolved from Curiosity to Ubiquity

P1. Sorry, but Europe is also vital to the survival of the United States. That's why the United State fought two world wars in Europe and has spent the past 75 years helping to defend it. Its not an either or proposition. You obviously don't understand the concept of COLLECTIVE DEFENSE. When Europe and the United States pool their resources together, it allows us to achieve a higher level of security at a lower cost while preventing the horror of another World War. If the Russians step across the border into Estonia, its just the same as if they landed in Mississippi as far as the United States is concerned. Its been that way for 70 years now, and TRUMP or any other bullshit isolationist is not going to change that.

P2. Oh, all Americans are dealing with the danger of now having a higher probability of being Killed by escaped or on the run ISIS fighters thanks to Trumps decision. There was no Civil War in the Kurdish area of Syria. Oh and if as you claim the Turks were so determined about their offensive, why did they just agree to a ceasefire. They have only taken one pocket which is 45 miles wide and 14 miles deep, and another that is 5 miles wide and 12 miles deep. After 10 days, they have yet to reach the M4 road which runs across the length of North Eastern Syria. More evidence that if the United States had just kept their troops in place, NONE OF THIS WOULD HAVE HAPPENED.

P3. No, adjusting for purchasing power parity is how you accurately measure a country's productivity, or GDP. The Cow that produces milk in China is no different than the Cow that produces milk in the United States. The REAL VALUE is the same, regardless of what someone at the local store pays for it. Your not accurately measuring GDP if you don't adjust for purchasing power parity.

P4. Europe is actually more important to the United States in 2019 than it was in 1945. Economic interdependence between North America and Europe is far greater today than it was in 1945. So its even more important today to keep U.S. troops in Europe to help defend it. Cutting or pulling away from Europe will only lead to war and possibly World War. Thats the lesson of the first Two World Wars and the United States is not about to repeat that again. The only places that are as important as defending Europe are the Persian Gulf states of Kuwait, Saudi Arabia, Qatar, Bahrain, and United Arab Emirates, as well as Singapore, Taiwan, South Korea, and Japan in East Asia.

P5 Turkey's dictator has been saying he was going to invade Kurdish Syria for years. He only did it now because Trump gave him the GREEN LIGHT and removed U.S. troops. THATS WHY 90% of CONGRESS voted to condemn Trumps actions. Even Republicans voted 2 to 1 to condemn what Trump did in Syria. If Trump had just listened to Mattis, we wouldn't have the problems of the past two weeks in Northern Syria.

P6 The United States is not an Island and can't Isolate itself from the world. ISIS also has capabilities through technology that terrorist groups did not have 20 years ago. So although homeland security has made improvements terrorist have developed ways thanks to technology to continue to penetrate and target modern societies through a variety of methods.

p1: "Collective defense" means that all parties do their fair share. Right now the EU's collective military isn't in the same class as the US military and both economies are roughly equal. As a US taxpayer I want the EU to pick up the slack so we don't need to keep paying $24b a year to keep US troops in the EU. The US can't afford it, and the EU needs to follow thru on its military commitments.

p2: If the US troops would have stayed in-place in Syria many would have been killed by the Turkish artillery. Erdogan said the Turks were invading no matter who was in Syria, so stop with the lies. 1000 non-combat US troops would not have stopped the massive Turkish invasion.

p3: Russia's economy is relatively small compared to its military. My point being that when the EU buys Russian gas that helps fund the Russian military. So don't buy Russian gas, and then tell us we need to send more US troops to the EU to defend it from the Russians.

p4. The US is important to the EU because we buy a lot of imported cars. Trump needs to put tariffs on all imports to level the field. The US economy, especially the manufacturing sector needs to be strengthened. If NATO was stronger it could do more to keep the peace.

p5: Trump did not give a green light. Erdogan was massing troops on the border for months. This is when he decided to invade. He told the US to get out of the way or get hurt. Trump was wise to pull back. Now we have negotiations and a ceasefire, that's progress. Turkey killed thousands of ISIS fighters already. You may not agree with Trump's methods, but we do.

p6. Agreed that terrorists are always improving their methods, so the US needs to keep pace. If the Debt hurts funding both the military and Homeland security get cut. So hard fiscal choices need to be made very soon.

 

[Billy_Kinetta]

Start here:

In 2017, the total cost of illegal immigration for the United States – at the federal, state, and local levels – was approximately $116 billion.

 

[Hossfly]

Start here:

In 2017, the total cost of illegal immigration for the United States – at the federal, state, and local levels – was approximately $116 billion.

OAN News Channel shows a chart every hour titled The Cost Of Illegal Immigration. As of today, Oct 17, 2019 the cost of calendar year 2019 is $216 billion.

 

[Hutch Starskey]

U.S. direction and leadership by example led to European countries joining the United States and increasing the size and strength of their military forces. Without U.S. engagement in this area it, never would have happened. The Europeans have always failed when it comes to security over the last century without the aid and support of the United States.

In 2013, the United States withdrew its last tank Units from Europe. It was the first time in over 70 years that there were no U.S. tank units in Europe. Then Russian invaded Ukraine and annexed the Crimea and parts of Eastern Ukraine. Since, then the United States has moved an entire Armored Brigade back to Europe and also positioned all the equipment for a second armored Brigade in Europe. So your wrong, there have been new U.S. troop deployments too Europe and more deployments are being studied and envisioned at the moment.

Bush never damaged NATO's unity. He in fact increased it with the Alliance performing its first out of Europe operations in its history which continue to this day.

There has NEVER been nor is there any such thing now, as an American Empire. The only people in the world to look at NATO as a threat are the Russians, Chinese, North Koreans, Iranians and non-state terrorist groups around the world. NATO threatens their ability to harass and take over various parts of the world and create havoc and instability everywhere.

The United States military and NATO military have been far more effective than any other military forces or other entities in solving the worlds problems and saving lives. Keeping the peace in Europe, preventing and deterring a Soviet/Warsaw Pact invasion, preventing World War III, saving Bosnia and Kosovo from genocide, giving Afghanistan its best government and highest standard of living in its history are just a few of the things they have accomplished.

I found you quite regularly to propose positions that are reasonable, at least defensible. The above, however, are the musings of a militaristic subject of empire - sorry to say.

Just in short to correct your misstatement on U.S. troops in Europe. I spoke about "additional troops", which would obviously mean rising troop numbers. Here's what happened during the last three decades or so:

Pointing to an armored brigade rotated in to replace other kinds of troops doesn't counter my point. Whatever, at a time when isolationism is on the rise in the U.S., and all eyes are on Europeans buckling up, expectations rise they provide for their own defense, expecting rising U.S. troop numbers in Europe would be illogical. At most, I see some legislators hinting at countering further draw-downs.

Its not about bean counting the number of military personal in Europe, but RELEVANT combat troops. The United States Armored Brigade that was sent to Europe following the Russian invasion and annexation of Crimea was not sent to replace other troops. It moved into Eastern Europe with most of its elements stationed in Poland. It was significant in that it marked the return of the first U.S. armored force to Europe since the last tank unit was foolishly withdrawn in 2013. There were only two U.S. combat brigades left in Europe at the end of 2013. A medium weight brigade with Stryker armored vehicles considered too light for heavy armored combat, stationed in southern Germany. The only other combat brigade was a light infantry airborne combat brigade stationed at Vicenza Italy. Another Armored Brigade's equipment has been pre-positioned in Eastern Europe so its troops can be moved from the United States and ready for combat on the ground in Europe within days. An armored battalion has been deployed to the Baltic States and another armored battalion has been deployed to Romania. So the number of U.S. ground combat troops in Europe has nearly doubled since the end of 2013, and more than doubled if you include the Brigade that has its pre-positioned equipment stored in Eastern Europe.

As stated before, it has been estimated that there needs to be at least 7 Brigades, most of them armored, in addition to Polish forces, to counter a Russian invasion of the Baltic States. This is NOT a time of retreat from Europe as it was prior to Russia's invasion of Ukraine in 2014. Russia's invasion of Ukraine reversed everything. Failure to deter a Russian invasion of the Baltic States, which since the Russian invasion of Ukraine, has become more likely, would lead to World War III. That is why it is imperative to increase the number of U.S. ground combat troops in Europe, in positions, where they could quickly respond to Russian aggression. The only way an adequate force will be deployed to defend the Baltic states is if the United States increases the number of ground combat brigades it has stationed in Europe. What has been done since the Russian invasion of Ukraine in 2014 is a start, but it is not enough.

The Russian threat is not at all being deemphasized in congress. There is far more support in congress today for increasing the number of ground combat brigades in Europe than at any time in the last five years.

Its far easier to defeat the Russian military if we keep the sanctions on Russia instead of helping them re-build and develop new classes of weapons, such as hyper-sonic missiles. Don't fight the last war. A quick first strike can eliminate a lot of ground forces (Maginot Line Redux?). Retaliation is always the name of the game with Russia. What part of "we can't afford to keep troops in the EU don't you understand?" The EU needs to step up, 70 years of the US paying to protect the EU is over.

An ‘Arms Race in Speed’: Hypersonic Weapons and the Changing Calculus of Battle | Arms Control Association

What the United States cannot afford to have happen is World War III. Every last dime must be spent preventing that from happening. There are no short cuts, or super weapons that will do that. Trumps stupid tax cut for the rich would have been more than enough to pay for U.S. defense spending related to Europe. The fucking rich don't need a trillion dollar tax cut. Those taxes can and should be used to deploy more U.S. combat Brigades to Europe.

What the United States cannot afford to have happen is World War III. Every last dime must be spent preventing that from happening.

Of whose money?

If WWIII breaks out, who stands to lose the most?

It won't be the U.S. So, why the FUCK do we have to spend even ONE SINGLE DIME???

NOBODY would DARE fuck with the U.S. on our soil, unless they plan on bringing a 10 million man army. One of the many benefits to having an armed citizenry.

.

Of whose money?

Whoever's money keeps them out of your basement, dope.

 

[Hutch Starskey]

SIS fighters have escaped the prisons they were contained in and are regrouping with other ISIS forces that were in hiding.

So blow up the fucking prisons before they do. Is there a problem here?

That would be genocide, dope.

Ummm ... no.

Sure, dope.

Explain why. We're all waiting.

You must first offer a positive.

No.
You must offer a competent articulation of your point.


Or just offer the usual cuntery.

 

[Billy_Kinetta]

So blow up the fucking prisons before they do. Is there a problem here?

That would be genocide, dope.

Ummm ... no.

Sure, dope.

Explain why. We're all waiting.

You must first offer a positive.

No.
You must offer a competent articulation of your point.


Or just offer the usual cuntery.

Au contraire, you must first justify your use of the word "genocide" before I can obliterate that erroneous justification.

 

[Hutch Starskey]

That would be genocide, dope.

Ummm ... no.

Sure, dope.

Explain why. We're all waiting.

You must first offer a positive.

No.
You must offer a competent articulation of your point.


Or just offer the usual cuntery.

Au contraire, you must first justify your use of the word "genocide" before I can obliterate that erroneous justification.

Good job, loser.

 

[Desperado]

When has NATO ever worked? It is just a ploy to take American's tax dollars so europeans do not have to spend theirs on a military