• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Germany Rejects Trump's Claims It Owes NATO and U.S. "Vast Sums"

code1211 said:
I didn't ignore your post. I referred to the separatists in a sovereign country that the Russians invaded.

In our country, Californians might become separatists. Are you authorizing an invasion there as well should it happen?
Click to expand...

No, they aren't, and regardless, succeeding from the US has always ended badly for those attempting to leave.



I didn't know when it was to have happened or when it will happen again. Did you know when the invasion of Ukraine was going to happen? The Annexation of Crimea?

If yes, it would have been good for Ukraine if you had let them in on the secret.
Click to expand...

I in no way implied foreknowledge of the invasion and your attempts to insinuate otherwise are as weak as your argument in of itself.
 
Jredbaron96 said:
No, they aren't, and regardless, succeeding from the US has always ended badly for those attempting to leave.





I in no way implied foreknowledge of the invasion and your attempts to insinuate otherwise are as weak as your argument in of itself.
Click to expand...

Regardless of the rationalizations you may offer, the military invasion of a neighboring country is generally considered bad form.
 
code1211 said:
I didn't ignore your post. I referred to the separatists in a sovereign country that the Russians invaded.

In our country, Californians might become separatists. Are you authorizing an invasion there as well should it happen?

I didn't know when it was to have happened or when it will happen again. Did you know when the invasion of Ukraine was going to happen? The Annexation of Crimea?

If yes, it would have been good for Ukraine if you had let them in on the secret.
Click to expand...

It was predicable that Russia would not allow the loss of Crimea and the port to it's military. It was predicted by more then a few US think tanks. As to when it would happen or if it would that would be impossible to predict as things change. Russia had/has to many strategic interests in eastern Ukraine to allow the lose of them. It could cripple its defense industry, and the lose of a turbine plant in the Ukraine has slowed Russian naval ship building (no turbines for power)

The overthrow of the Ukrainian government to a far more pro west government was the spark, the cause and the opportunity Russia required to take the action.

The Georgian effort to retake South Ossetia just before the Winter Olympics in Russia was timed as the hope would have been that Russia would not take action before the Olympics causing a mass boycott. That Russia would take action and risk the failure of the Winter Olympics should have been a wake up call that Russia will defend and a take action now on what it considers strategic interests
 
Last edited:
code1211 said:
Regardless of the rationalizations you may offer, the military invasion of a neighboring country is generally considered bad form.
Click to expand...
It is bad form indeed. Nevertheless, Trump has considered removing/diluting US sanctions on Russia. To prevent Trump from jiggering with US sanctions against Russia, the 'Counteracting Russian Hostilities Act of 2017' is moving through both houses of the US Congress. The bill will contain sanctions against Russia that only Congress can remove.
 
Rogue Valley said:
It is bad form indeed. Nevertheless, Trump has considered removing/diluting US sanctions on Russia. To prevent Trump from jiggering with US sanctions against Russia, the 'Counteracting Russian Hostilities Act of 2017' is moving through both houses of the US Congress. The bill will contain sanctions against Russia that only Congress can remove.
Click to expand...

It seems like the relations between Russia and the US are coming upon hard times.

Trump doesn't seem to be enamored of the Russians at all. Being open to talk and arranging to cave are two different things.

Hillary was in charge of the caving with her re-set button. Didn't work. Never will.
 
code1211 said:
Regardless of the rationalizations you may offer, the military invasion of a neighboring country is generally considered bad form.
Click to expand...

Can you put that in a memo and title it "**** I already know"?

That wasn't my point and you know that.
 
Jredbaron96 said:
Can you put that in a memo and title it "**** I already know"?

That wasn't my point and you know that.
Click to expand...

I'm sorry. You seemed to be saying that the presence of Russian Separatists in the neighboring country justified the invasion.

You went on to say that there are no Russian separatists in other European countries so the likelihood of Russia invading those countries is dismiss-able.

What was the point you were trying to relay?
 
code1211 said:
I'm sorry. You seemed to be saying that the presence of Russian Separatists in the neighboring country justified the invasion.

You went on to say that there are no Russian separatists in other European countries so the likelihood of Russia invading those countries is dismiss-able.

What was the point you were trying to relay?
Click to expand...

The point





your head.

I don't think I have enough crayons to do this but let's try one more time.

I never said that the presence of separatists justified the invasion. Stop making **** up. I was merely stating why that invasion was more successful and a more realistic approach than an invasion of other European states like Germany or France.
 
Jredbaron96 said:
The point





your head.

I don't think I have enough crayons to do this but let's try one more time.

I never said that the presence of separatists justified the invasion. Stop making **** up. I was merely stating why that invasion was more successful and a more realistic approach than an invasion of other European states like Germany or France.
Click to expand...

Great ad hom attack!

Perhaps a better presented line of logic would suffice.

The question is whether or not spending money on defense of one's own home is a good move or not a good move.

You seem to have been saying that there is no threat to justify additional spending by the "other European states like Germany or France". I disagree.

I feel that if they want to be secure, they should buy the metaphorical locks to and security systems to protect their homes. They seem to be content in letting the Yanks do their work for them.

You seem to be justifying that decision. Is that your point? Who do you think should be paying for the defense of Europe? Americans or Europeans?
 
code1211 said:
Great ad hom attack!

Perhaps a better presented line of logic would suffice.

The question is whether or not spending money on defense of one's own home is a good move or not a good move.

You seem to have been saying that there is no threat to justify additional spending by the "other European states like Germany or France". I disagree.

I feel that if they want to be secure, they should buy the metaphorical locks to and security systems to protect their homes. They seem to be content in letting the Yanks do their work for them.

You seem to be justifying that decision. Is that your point? Who do you think should be paying for the defense of Europe? Americans or Europeans?
Click to expand...

France and Germany both spend money of their defense. Billions of dollars worth. Both Europe and the US should contribute to the defense of Europe; it's in both our strategic interests to do so. That easy enough for you to understand?
 
Jredbaron96 said:
France and Germany both spend money of their defense. Billions of dollars worth. Both Europe and the US should contribute to the defense of Europe; it's in both our strategic interests to do so. That easy enough for you to understand?
Click to expand...

Why are they spending such small percentages of their GDP's?
 
code1211 said:
Why are they spending such small percentages of their GDP's?
Click to expand...

Percentage of GDP is not a good indicator of military capability first of all. Saudia Arabia spends more than Germany, France and Russia but you'd be a fool to think the Saudi Armed Forces are better than any of those states.

I've explained the French situation numerous times. Modern French strategic doctrine emphasizes nuclear deterrent instead of conventional forces. It's just a different mindset.

Germany currently faces no major conventional threat necessitating large and expensive fleets of tanks and armored vehicles.
 
Jredbaron96 said:
Percentage of GDP is not a good indicator of military capability first of all. Saudia Arabia spends more than Germany, France and Russia but you'd be a fool to think the Saudi Armed Forces are better than any of those states.

I've explained the French situation numerous times. Modern French strategic doctrine emphasizes nuclear deterrent instead of conventional forces. It's just a different mindset.

Germany currently faces no major conventional threat necessitating large and expensive fleets of tanks and armored vehicles.
Click to expand...

Sounds like a European a threat assessment from 1938.

 
No one tell Trump about Iceland...
 
code1211 said:
Aww...

You're one of those that refuse to understand history and therefore are doomed to repeat the mistakes.

Good for you! You're adorable!
Click to expand...

Your insults are as weak as your debate skills.

The reference was actually to Chamberlain, not Hitler. As I understand it, Hitler was very prepared for war in 1938.

Quotes About Doomed To Repeat It (12 quotes)
Click to expand...

It's patently clear you actually know nothing of history, so I'm not really concerned about whatever narrow minded conclusions you've drawn from it.
 
Jredbaron96 said:
Your insults are as weak as your debate skills.



It's patently clear you actually know nothing of history, so I'm not really concerned about whatever narrow minded conclusions you've drawn from it.
Click to expand...

Only trying to clarify your inaccurate inferences.
 
code1211 said:
Only trying to clarify your inaccurate inferences.
Click to expand...

If I tried to identify every inaccuracy or misplaced inference on your part I would be here all week.

You've demonstrated zero understanding of how military spending, proficiency and modern strategy works. All you've said is a continued reference to 2% standard and poorly made historical references that are in no way relevant to the modern situation.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom