When will USA accept their crimes against Japan? - Page 23

GySgt · 06-12-08, 02:16 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Scucca

The US certainly has received more benefits from NATO than the smaller members. However, the evidence does not support any notion of unfair burden sharing. Given those skewed benefits, perhaps it should?

I am very well aware of NATO and its half ass conduct. What are you saying above? The evidence supports exactly what I have stated. A brief few years of self expenditures do not change what has occurred. If the report is true, then how do you explain Afghanistan? Somalia? Bosnia? This report is exactly the type of reports that was produced at every level during the 90's that did not reflect upon accuracy and complete truth. After all is said and done and NATO assumes the financial role for itself....it is still just NATO.

Scucca · 06-12-08, 02:19 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by GySgt

Abrief few years of expenditures do not change what has occurred.

Perhaps you'd like to refer to the empirical source directly where your stance is supported? Alternatively, perhaps you'd like to reference an alternative empirical source? I'm afraid you've peddled standard cliché

Volker · 06-12-08, 02:35 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by GySgt

But why? For your sausages?

Don't ask me, the Allies made the decision.

Quote:

Originally Posted by GySgt

Oh yes you have. And you know exactly what I'm talking about.

I have no idea.

Quote:

Originally Posted by GySgt

Hide it from others, but I remember your posts and see through your careful wording. When the skin head nation was invading the site early last summer, you behaved like a distant relative showing appreciation for what a cast out family member does. Since the crack down, you have been Mr. pacifist who merely seeks the wrong in anyone in a hopes that the splinter of one country will equal the 4x8 of another. And of late, you are showing the old Volker who was fueled with resentment, anger, and ethnic superiority.

Do you care to show me an example about interacting with the skin head nation, pacifism or ethnic superiority to support your absurd theory?

Volker · 06-12-08, 02:37 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by GySgt

Everyone but the loser profits from war. This is historical and will not aid you in your quest to paint America as unique in this matter.

Usually countries lose money in a war, they don't make some.
This is at least so in modern times.

Volker · 06-12-08, 02:45 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Scucca

Britain certainly didn't profit from WW2. Given your inaccurate remarks about NATO, that is at least two inaccurate remarks in the thread so far

Can I add the Angola, Burundi, Rwanda Muslim connection? This makes three then.

GySgt · 06-12-08, 02:54 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Scucca

Perhaps you'd like to refer to the empirical source directly where your stance is supported? Alternatively, perhaps you'd like to reference an alternative empirical source? I'm afraid you've peddled standard cliché

I don't even know what you are talking about. The expenditures that America has spent in defense of Europe far exceed what NATO's paultry contribution has been. At our expense, it has languished and talked its way into getting away with it for too long. Does Europe give the American military money for protecting the free world in its absence? Does Europe pull its weight while America wades through the tides? While NATO funds to replinish its equipment that breaks due to weather or normal operation, does the expenditure amount near the total that America spends to replenish and repair equipment (and troops) that is damaged through combat in the same operations? Is there some reason other than European habit that would expect America to keep dishing out money to fund parts of their defense? There is plenty of expenditure, effort, and blood not contributed by our "allies."

Quote:

Once Europe got back on its feet, most American troops were to return home, and Europe was supposed to make an equal commitment to its defense.

Unfortunately, this never happened. Today this situation is a total joke, a joke that is costing American tax payers tens of billions of dollars as fabulously rich nations, such as Germany, the third largest economy on earth, spend almost 50% less than America does on defense as a share of their GNP. In other words they are making 50% less of a sacrifice than U.S. citizens, while NATO Europe as whole spends 40% less.
NATO Reform

Quote:

Unless Europe and the United States create a true partnership based on European military strength, we can expect these sorts of disputes to continue. America will not yield control over military operations or forces while it provides the bulk of the capability and assumes the major risks. A European Defense Identity Would Bolster NATO - International Herald Tribune

Quote:

The United States spends more than twice the amount of all 18 other NATO allies on defense spending. The fear among NATO supporters is that this huge disparity may eventually weaken the alliance to the point of its dissolution.

Some in the US government are beginning to think that its European allies are simply free riders, letting the US do all the expensive and dangerous defense work.

Foreign Policy Association: NATO|NATO: European Defense Spending

Quote:

Threatening to end NATO if Europe does not contribute more troops to out of area missions is like playing a game of chicken: if both sides play to win the result is huge mutual costs. The USA has twitched, so Europe gets a free ride.
NATO Burden Sharing - Atlantic Review - Analysis of Transatlantic Relations and U.S. Foreign Policy

Quote:

Look at Afghanistan, where NATO is always having trouble dredging up an extra helicopter or another infantry battalion to throw into the fray. The British and Canadians are doing more than their share; their willingness to fight hard and take casualties sets them apart from most NATO countries, which prefer to send troops to safe parts of Afghanistan rather than to the front lines in the south and east. But 5,500 British and 2,500 Canadian soldiers can cover only so much ground, even with another 1,500 Brits thrown in. As usual, the United States, with more than 27,000 troops in Afghanistan, is left to carry the lion's share of the burden.

Going it alone because we have to - Los Angeles Times

And here are excerpts from a speech by the Secretary General at the 5th Forum Europe Defence Industries Conference in May 2000 in Brussels....

Quote:

The need for progress in European capabilities is very clear, and the Kosovo operation has shown us very clearly where we have work to do. First, we have to improve the military capabilities of most NATO members. During the air campaign, one ally had to carry a disproportionate share of the burden simply because the others didn't have the military capability to participate at all levels.

Imagine a situation in which a richer and more unified Europe was unable or unwilling to take on greater defence responsibilities. Where Europe continued to make strong statements, but had to rely on the United States to back up those words with deeds. How long could this unequal security relationship endure?
NATO Speech: 23 May 2000

Volker · 06-12-08, 02:56 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Volker

Can I add the Angola, Burundi, Rwanda Muslim connection? This makes three then.

Oh, and the skin head nation invasion was in summer 2006. This makes four then.

GySgt · 06-12-08, 02:59 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Scucca

Britain certainly didn't profit from WW2. Given your inaccurate remarks about NATO, that is at least two inaccurate remarks in the thread so far

Britian was a victim. America profitted. Had Germany won, Germany would have profitted like everyone else who wages war but is not the victim.

My remarks about NATO were very accurate. Yours were merely based on a report that did not reflect on the reality of what NATO is. American leaders are notorious for trying to make our allies feel good about themselves (diplomacy and all). Enjoy the remarks I presented from NATO leaders themselves.

....this would make two inaccurate defensive postures for you.

GySgt · 06-12-08, 03:02 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Volker

Oh, and the skin head nation invasion was in summer 2006. This makes four then.

Ah...you remember well.

Scucca · 06-12-08, 03:07 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by GySgt

Britian was a victim. America profitted.

Making your comment a tad nonsensical!

Quote:

My remarks about NATO were very accurate.

Nope. You're peddling the usual nonsense. When confronted with actual evidence (from an American who has bothered to research the topic), you're potless!

Quote:

Yours were merely based on a report that did not reflect on the reality of what NATO is.

That isn't a cunning remark. The report refers to the costs and benefits from NATO membership. It applies defence economic theory to statistical methodology. Whilst you may have a 'its true cos I say so, honest', you haven't got anything to dismiss its nature.

Quote:

American leaders are notorious for trying to make our allies feel good about themselves (diplomacy and all).

Sandler is an independent researcher and probably one of the most respected in the field. I'll stick to proper evidence, rather than soundbites

Quote:

....this would make two inaccurate defensive postures for you.

Third inaccurate remark from you. You're on a harvesting?