FabSwingers.com > Forums > Politics > US to EU: "Buy our arms or NATO won't defend you"
US to EU: "Buy our arms or NATO won't defend you"
Jump to: Newest in thread
| |||
| |||
| |||
| |||
"Fair play to the US, they have stuck their necks out many times to ensure that Western Europe did not fall into the hands of the Nazis or the Soviets. The EU should be looking to pay their way in NATO, not build a nefarious new army of their own. As for Germany, they have a proven track record of building armies then attempting to take over the world. Let them get their hands on French, let alone British nukes and Putin will look like a ragtime dolly. Chamberlinesque libtards will continue to look the other way while a massive German army goose steps around central and Western Europe, taking control of country after country. This time aided and abetted by the French, who it seems have surrendered yet again, only this time before a single shot has been fired." You really should cut down on watching US war movies and read a little more. | |||
| |||
"A nato country is committed to spending a percentage of gross national income on defence the only 2 countries in the eu that do this are Britain and poland you cant blame the yanks for being pissed off." Pissed off they might spend it in European factories rather than American ones. | |||
"WW2 Korea Vietnam Cuba Gulf war 1 Gulf war 2 Afghanistan And,whilst running your eye over the list, let's not forget who paid out the most, (USA Vs EU) both in financial and human cost, shall we? " There was no EU in WW2. Poland sustained more deaths and casualties in WW2 alone, than the USA has in every war it's ever fought since 1775. The EU know that NATO is a busted flush without the USA; but they also know the USA can't be relied on to defend Europe any more. So, it makes sense for EU countries to look to their own defence and build their own weapons in their own factories employing their own workers. If the US military-industrial complex doesn't like it; too bad. | |||
"A nato country is committed to spending a percentage of gross national income on defence the only 2 countries in the eu that do this are Britain and poland you cant blame the yanks for being pissed off. Pissed off they might spend it in European factories rather than American ones. " The point is they are not spending it in any factories if you want a defense force you cant expect someone else to pay for it. | |||
| |||
"WW2 Korea Vietnam Cuba Gulf war 1 Gulf war 2 Afghanistan And,whilst running your eye over the list, let's not forget who paid out the most, (USA Vs EU) both in financial and human cost, shall we? There was no EU in WW2. Poland sustained more deaths and casualties in WW2 alone, than the USA has in every war it's ever fought since 1775. The EU know that NATO is a busted flush without the USA; but they also know the USA can't be relied on to defend Europe any more. So, it makes sense for EU countries to look to their own defence and build their own weapons in their own factories employing their own workers. If the US military-industrial complex doesn't like it; too bad." No there was no EU in WW2 but if was not for the USA there would be no EU now Just remember what happened when Germany had armies in Europe we had WW1 and WW2 short memories | |||
| |||
"The EU27 spend zero on defence procurement? You might want to check your facts." Think you are on a different page all nato countries are committed to spending 2% of gross national income.The uk and poland are the only countries in the eu that meet this commitment the eu at the moment dont have a defense force hence zero procurement. | |||
| |||
"A nato country is committed to spending a percentage of gross national income on defence the only 2 countries in the eu that do this are Britain and poland you cant blame the yanks for being pissed off. Pissed off they might spend it in European factories rather than American ones. The point is they are not spending it in any factories if you want a defense force you cant expect someone else to pay for it." Your quote. European members of NATO are not spending any money on procurement. Not all members of the EU are in NATO. Most are. | |||
"A nato country is committed to spending a percentage of gross national income on defence the only 2 countries in the eu that do this are Britain and poland you cant blame the yanks for being pissed off. Pissed off they might spend it in European factories rather than American ones. The point is they are not spending it in any factories if you want a defense force you cant expect someone else to pay for it. Your quote. European members of NATO are not spending any money on procurement. Not all members of the EU are in NATO. Most are." Im sorry i dont get your point,my point is as said the nato members who are in nato are not meeting their commitments apart from the uk and poland .Whats hard to understand about that? | |||
"A nato country is committed to spending a percentage of gross national income on defence the only 2 countries in the eu that do this are Britain and poland you cant blame the yanks for being pissed off. Pissed off they might spend it in European factories rather than American ones. The point is they are not spending it in any factories if you want a defense force you cant expect someone else to pay for it. Your quote. European members of NATO are not spending any money on procurement.Sorry i missed the question mark when i read your previous post now understand what you are on about.No i didnt say they were not spending any on defense i said they are not meeting the amount they are committed to. Germany for example only spend 1%. Not all members of the EU are in NATO. Most are." | |||
"A nato country is committed to spending a percentage of gross national income on defence the only 2 countries in the eu that do this are Britain and poland you cant blame the yanks for being pissed off. Pissed off they might spend it in European factories rather than American ones. The point is they are not spending it in any factories if you want a defense force you cant expect someone else to pay for it. Your quote. European members of NATO are not spending any money on procurement.Sorry i missed the question mark when i read your previous post now understand what you are on about.. Not all members of the EU are in NATO. Most are." No i didnt say they were not spending any on defense i said they are not meeting the amount they are committed to. Germany for example only spend 1% | |||
| |||
"A nato country is committed to spending a percentage of gross national income on defence the only 2 countries in the eu that do this are Britain and poland you cant blame the yanks for being pissed off. Pissed off they might spend it in European factories rather than American ones. The point is they are not spending it in any factories if you want a defense force you cant expect someone else to pay for it. Your quote. European members of NATO are not spending any money on procurement.Sorry i missed the question mark when i read your previous post now understand what you are on about.. Not all members of the EU are in NATO. Most are.No i didnt say they were not spending any on defense i said they are not meeting the amount they are committed to. Germany for example only spend 1%" I heard somewhere that the UK spends only hits 2% because we include military welfare and pension payments in that calculation. The 2% should really be about front line defence spending. Taking out military welfare and pensions and the grotesquely skewering amount for Trident and our spending is probably completely piss poor. Let's not beat about the bush here, our front line army will fit in Wembley stadium with seats to spare. Take out the REMF's and support staff and it wouldn't even fill the away end. | |||
| |||
 | |||
"you heard somewhere it must be right then. "Well you tell me how the “allegedly” 5th largest economy in the world spends 2% of its GDP on defence but can’t maintain a credible and independent front line fighting force anymore? | |||
"you heard somewhere it must be right then.
Well you tell me how the “allegedly” 5th largest economy in the world spends 2% of its GDP on defence but can’t maintain a credible and independent front line fighting force anymore?"I think most of it is spent on technology,new aircraft carriers and a nucular deterrent.Large frontline forces are old hat these days you have to move with the times. | |||
| |||
"Fair play to the US, they have stuck their necks out many times to ensure that Western Europe did not fall into the hands of the Nazis or the Soviets. The EU should be looking to pay their way in NATO, not build a nefarious new army of their own. As for Germany, they have a proven track record of building armies then attempting to take over the world. Let them get their hands on French, let alone British nukes and Putin will look like a ragtime dolly. Chamberlinesque libtards will continue to look the other way while a massive German army goose steps around central and Western Europe, taking control of country after country. This time aided and abetted by the French, who it seems have surrendered yet again, only this time before a single shot has been fired." This satire right? | |||
| |||
"you heard somewhere it must be right then.
Well you tell me how the “allegedly” 5th largest economy in the world spends 2% of its GDP on defence but can’t maintain a credible and independent front line fighting force anymore?I think most of it is spent on technology,new aircraft carriers and a nucular deterrent.Large frontline forces are old hat these days you have to move with the times. "So why should we and the EU buy our kit from the US. The US is largely focused on conventional warfare. I.e, firearms, artillery ect. They buy a lot of their new drone tech off us and Israel. They buy a lot of engineering data rights from Japan, Germany, ourselves Their hardware is largely considered cheap tack by friends I have in the forces and in the Royal Navy - designed for a large, mass deployment army, not really designed for the era of technical warfare we are heading into. So I'll return to the point, why should any nation increase their trade deficit buying US kit suitable for the 90's, but not really for the 2020's and forward? | |||
"Fair play to the US, they have stuck their necks out many times to ensure that Western Europe did not fall into the hands of the Nazis or the Soviets. The EU should be looking to pay their way in NATO, not build a nefarious new army of their own. As for Germany, they have a proven track record of building armies then attempting to take over the world. Let them get their hands on French, let alone British nukes and Putin will look like a ragtime dolly. Chamberlinesque libtards will continue to look the other way while a massive German army goose steps around central and Western Europe, taking control of country after country. This time aided and abetted by the French, who it seems have surrendered yet again, only this time before a single shot has been fired. You really should cut down on watching US war movies and read a little more." You really should explain yourself properly instead of just making sloppy remarks. What am I supposed to read more of? It was the 75th anniversary of d day yesterday. Tell me, who was it that was threatening the entire world for the second time in fifty years? | |||
"Fair play to the US, they have stuck their necks out many times to ensure that Western Europe did not fall into the hands of the Nazis or the Soviets. The EU should be looking to pay their way in NATO, not build a nefarious new army of their own. As for Germany, they have a proven track record of building armies then attempting to take over the world. Let them get their hands on French, let alone British nukes and Putin will look like a ragtime dolly. Chamberlinesque libtards will continue to look the other way while a massive German army goose steps around central and Western Europe, taking control of country after country. This time aided and abetted by the French, who it seems have surrendered yet again, only this time before a single shot has been fired. You really should cut down on watching US war movies and read a little more. You really should explain yourself properly instead of just making sloppy remarks. What am I supposed to read more of? It was the 75th anniversary of d day yesterday. Tell me, who was it that was threatening the entire world for the second time in fifty years? " You and other users have made sweeping remarks painting the American policy makers (note, I'm not slagging off the individual service people's at the time) as heroes and saviours of Europe. The American policy of assisting Britain and her allies in WW1 and 2 was purely economic until they were dragged in through two respective events. If anything, until the US got involved, you can really say they were just making money off the war. Armies need food, equipment and raw materials. The US treated the early period of both wars as a trade oppertunity. As for the wars someone else mentioned, these are more complex, with resource control and trade, or ideological differences at the forefront. They were really US wars, not global wars. They are the mark of a hegemonic nation, much like how Britain waged hegemonic wars in the 1800-early 1900's. Really, all I can suggest is look for specific books on the geopolitics of the period. If you don't like to read, high quality content is now available on YouTube and podcasting services. To round off. On my dad's Norwegian side of the family we have a few Finnish people brought into the family via marriage. I love talking to them. Though, they get very bitter at the narrative over the US being heroes in the second world war and the war against the Soviets. The Fins were occupied and left virtually alone, for the entire second world war period, until the formation of the EEC formation. Even then, the American's, French and British explicitly said they could only offer preferencial trade to Finland to avoid inflaming Soviet conflict. Just a thought, maybe listen to something which doesn't have the anglosphere rose tinged glasses. | |||
"Fair play to the US, they have stuck their necks out many times to ensure that Western Europe did not fall into the hands of the Nazis or the Soviets. The EU should be looking to pay their way in NATO, not build a nefarious new army of their own. As for Germany, they have a proven track record of building armies then attempting to take over the world. Let them get their hands on French, let alone British nukes and Putin will look like a ragtime dolly. Chamberlinesque libtards will continue to look the other way while a massive German army goose steps around central and Western Europe, taking control of country after country. This time aided and abetted by the French, who it seems have surrendered yet again, only this time before a single shot has been fired. You really should cut down on watching US war movies and read a little more. You really should explain yourself properly instead of just making sloppy remarks. What am I supposed to read more of? It was the 75th anniversary of d day yesterday. Tell me, who was it that was threatening the entire world for the second time in fifty years? " The nazis | |||
"Fair play to the US, they have stuck their necks out many times to ensure that Western Europe did not fall into the hands of the Nazis or the Soviets. The EU should be looking to pay their way in NATO, not build a nefarious new army of their own. As for Germany, they have a proven track record of building armies then attempting to take over the world. Let them get their hands on French, let alone British nukes and Putin will look like a ragtime dolly. Chamberlinesque libtards will continue to look the other way while a massive German army goose steps around central and Western Europe, taking control of country after country. This time aided and abetted by the French, who it seems have surrendered yet again, only this time before a single shot has been fired. You really should cut down on watching US war movies and read a little more. You really should explain yourself properly instead of just making sloppy remarks. What am I supposed to read more of? It was the 75th anniversary of d day yesterday. Tell me, who was it that was threatening the entire world for the second time in fifty years? The nazis " Not the first time... | |||
"Fair play to the US, they have stuck their necks out many times to ensure that Western Europe did not fall into the hands of the Nazis or the Soviets. The EU should be looking to pay their way in NATO, not build a nefarious new army of their own. As for Germany, they have a proven track record of building armies then attempting to take over the world. Let them get their hands on French, let alone British nukes and Putin will look like a ragtime dolly. Chamberlinesque libtards will continue to look the other way while a massive German army goose steps around central and Western Europe, taking control of country after country. This time aided and abetted by the French, who it seems have surrendered yet again, only this time before a single shot has been fired. You really should cut down on watching US war movies and read a little more. You really should explain yourself properly instead of just making sloppy remarks. What am I supposed to read more of? It was the 75th anniversary of d day yesterday. Tell me, who was it that was threatening the entire world for the second time in fifty years? You and other users have made sweeping remarks painting the American policy makers (note, I'm not slagging off the individual service people's at the time) as heroes and saviours of Europe. The American policy of assisting Britain and her allies in WW1 and 2 was purely economic until they were dragged in through two respective events. If anything, until the US got involved, you can really say they were just making money off the war. Armies need food, equipment and raw materials. The US treated the early period of both wars as a trade oppertunity. As for the wars someone else mentioned, these are more complex, with resource control and trade, or ideological differences at the forefront. They were really US wars, not global wars. They are the mark of a hegemonic nation, much like how Britain waged hegemonic wars in the 1800-early 1900's. Really, all I can suggest is look for specific books on the geopolitics of the period. If you don't like to read, high quality content is now available on YouTube and podcasting services. To round off. On my dad's Norwegian side of the family we have a few Finnish people brought into the family via marriage. I love talking to them. Though, they get very bitter at the narrative over the US being heroes in the second world war and the war against the Soviets. The Fins were occupied and left virtually alone, for the entire second world war period, until the formation of the EEC formation. Even then, the American's, French and British explicitly said they could only offer preferencial trade to Finland to avoid inflaming Soviet conflict. Just a thought, maybe listen to something which doesn't have the anglosphere rose tinged glasses. " I’m aware of the lend lease and all the other debts we owed to the US from the beginning of WW2. I also know that we could have lost the war had the Japs attacked the Soviets instead of the US. There may well be a myriad of different reasons behind the two world wars and who was allied to who. None of it makes a shred of difference to me. I still don’t and never will trust the Germans, and have no time whatsoever for the French... | |||
"Fair play to the US, they have stuck their necks out many times to ensure that Western Europe did not fall into the hands of the Nazis or the Soviets. The EU should be looking to pay their way in NATO, not build a nefarious new army of their own. As for Germany, they have a proven track record of building armies then attempting to take over the world. Let them get their hands on French, let alone British nukes and Putin will look like a ragtime dolly. Chamberlinesque libtards will continue to look the other way while a massive German army goose steps around central and Western Europe, taking control of country after country. This time aided and abetted by the French, who it seems have surrendered yet again, only this time before a single shot has been fired. You really should cut down on watching US war movies and read a little more. You really should explain yourself properly instead of just making sloppy remarks. What am I supposed to read more of? It was the 75th anniversary of d day yesterday. Tell me, who was it that was threatening the entire world for the second time in fifty years? You and other users have made sweeping remarks painting the American policy makers (note, I'm not slagging off the individual service people's at the time) as heroes and saviours of Europe. The American policy of assisting Britain and her allies in WW1 and 2 was purely economic until they were dragged in through two respective events. If anything, until the US got involved, you can really say they were just making money off the war. Armies need food, equipment and raw materials. The US treated the early period of both wars as a trade oppertunity. As for the wars someone else mentioned, these are more complex, with resource control and trade, or ideological differences at the forefront. They were really US wars, not global wars. They are the mark of a hegemonic nation, much like how Britain waged hegemonic wars in the 1800-early 1900's. Really, all I can suggest is look for specific books on the geopolitics of the period. If you don't like to read, high quality content is now available on YouTube and podcasting services. To round off. On my dad's Norwegian side of the family we have a few Finnish people brought into the family via marriage. I love talking to them. Though, they get very bitter at the narrative over the US being heroes in the second world war and the war against the Soviets. The Fins were occupied and left virtually alone, for the entire second world war period, until the formation of the EEC formation. Even then, the American's, French and British explicitly said they could only offer preferencial trade to Finland to avoid inflaming Soviet conflict. Just a thought, maybe listen to something which doesn't have the anglosphere rose tinged glasses. I’m aware of the lend lease and all the other debts we owed to the US from the beginning of WW2. I also know that we could have lost the war had the Japs attacked the Soviets instead of the US. There may well be a myriad of different reasons behind the two world wars and who was allied to who. None of it makes a shred of difference to me. I still don’t and never will trust the Germans, and have no time whatsoever for the French..." We live in a modern Europe, the France and Germany you spout your ignorance about is in the past.. Go and travel, for fucks sake your living in some imaginery bubble served by the rhetoric of the small minded little Englander.. I have served alongside the troops of both of those countries and that you still think in the way you do is a gross misrepresentation of those democracies.. | |||
 | |||
"Fair play to the US, they have stuck their necks out many times to ensure that Western Europe did not fall into the hands of the Nazis or the Soviets. The EU should be looking to pay their way in NATO, not build a nefarious new army of their own. As for Germany, they have a proven track record of building armies then attempting to take over the world. Let them get their hands on French, let alone British nukes and Putin will look like a ragtime dolly. Chamberlinesque libtards will continue to look the other way while a massive German army goose steps around central and Western Europe, taking control of country after country. This time aided and abetted by the French, who it seems have surrendered yet again, only this time before a single shot has been fired. You really should cut down on watching US war movies and read a little more. You really should explain yourself properly instead of just making sloppy remarks. What am I supposed to read more of? It was the 75th anniversary of d day yesterday. Tell me, who was it that was threatening the entire world for the second time in fifty years? You and other users have made sweeping remarks painting the American policy makers (note, I'm not slagging off the individual service people's at the time) as heroes and saviours of Europe. The American policy of assisting Britain and her allies in WW1 and 2 was purely economic until they were dragged in through two respective events. If anything, until the US got involved, you can really say they were just making money off the war. Armies need food, equipment and raw materials. The US treated the early period of both wars as a trade oppertunity. As for the wars someone else mentioned, these are more complex, with resource control and trade, or ideological differences at the forefront. They were really US wars, not global wars. They are the mark of a hegemonic nation, much like how Britain waged hegemonic wars in the 1800-early 1900's. Really, all I can suggest is look for specific books on the geopolitics of the period. If you don't like to read, high quality content is now available on YouTube and podcasting services. To round off. On my dad's Norwegian side of the family we have a few Finnish people brought into the family via marriage. I love talking to them. Though, they get very bitter at the narrative over the US being heroes in the second world war and the war against the Soviets. The Fins were occupied and left virtually alone, for the entire second world war period, until the formation of the EEC formation. Even then, the American's, French and British explicitly said they could only offer preferencial trade to Finland to avoid inflaming Soviet conflict. Just a thought, maybe listen to something which doesn't have the anglosphere rose tinged glasses. I’m aware of the lend lease and all the other debts we owed to the US from the beginning of WW2. I also know that we could have lost the war had the Japs attacked the Soviets instead of the US. There may well be a myriad of different reasons behind the two world wars and who was allied to who. None of it makes a shred of difference to me. I still don’t and never will trust the Germans, and have no time whatsoever for the French..." I wonder if citizens of countries we invaded never will trust and have no time whatsoever for us. | |||
