Galileo at the trough of EU taxpayer money

[Patroklos]

and you don't expect us to believe that US global presence is only there to help others and that it does have nothing to do with genuine US interests as well?

No, and I don't think any American has said that in this thread. Simple fact is most of the interests of Europe are interests of America as well, and visa versa.

I for one think European military expediture in naval forces would be prefered as they have a small footprint and allow for showing the flag without putting boots on the ground. And honestly it is hard for ground troops to enforce anything without being in someones hair, international maritime law can for the most part be enforced from international waters.

And twenty European FF/DD don't duplicate an already functioning alliance capability, just enhance one that could use a little more presence.

[Sprayber]

Originally posted by BeBro


Not that clear. Nobody should have a prob admitting that in certain fields it was/is posititive. That doesn't mean people have to like every aspect of it. US military presence around the world also means US influence around the world and it's quite natural that not everyone likes that - just like you posted you wouldn't like "the idea of Europeans with any sort of force projection".

I can fully understand why people don't like American influence. Bunch of upstarts who think they can dictate terms and always take the lead just because they have a large economy and military. Espeically since not long ago it was Europe who dominated and America wasn't really much.

That's also the best way to amputate yourself away from superpower status....and you don't expect us to believe that US global presence is only there to help others and that it does have nothing to do with genuine US interests as well?

The problem with being a superpower is that everything both great and small tends to become a vital interest. Now it's a source of pride to be able to call oneself a superpower to be sure, but I don't believe it's actually benificial to the country as a whole. Perhaps we have crossed the point of no return and must always maintain our status as a superpower in order to have the life we are accustomed to. Being a superpower and looking after our interests as such leads us to do things that I think goes against what America is supposed to be in the first place. Then again, maybe I'm just a sentimental fool who bought into America being something different.

[Ecthy]

Originally posted by Saras
They're there to make sure your loyalties stay with NATO should Russia go nuts and tried to annex Estonia.

German armies have protected baltic states against Russian aggression in the past without American presence

[BeBMan]

Yeah, remember that Teutonic Order

[Saras]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_the_Vorskla_River

After losing the war, Tokhtamysh was then dethroned by the party of Khan Temur Qutlugh and Emir Edigu, supported by Tamerlane. When Tokhtamysh asked Vytautas for assistance in retaking the Horde, the latter readily gathered a huge army which included Lithuanians, Tatars , Ruthenians, Russians, Poles, Moldavians, Wallachians, and Teutonic knights.

Proud allies vs the brown people

[Ecthy]

I'm talking the newly founded Freikorps troops liberating Lithuania from Soviet aggression.

[Saras]

getting our arses kicked nevertheless

[Ecthy]

20 years later though when Germany wasn't interested in the baltics / was too weak to protect you (pick one).

[BeBMan]

Originally posted by Ecthy
I'm talking the newly founded Freikorps troops liberating Lithuania from Soviet aggression.

But the knights have a huge coolness bonus.

[Patroklos]

20 years later though when Germany wasn't interested in the baltics / was too weak to protect you (pick one).

Perhaps if they had spent their money on worthwhile defense projects instead of a redundant GPS system...

[Ecthy]

GPS system in the 30s? Get your facts straight...

[/PhD]

[Patroklos]

[Dauphin]

Originally posted by Kuciwalker


I wasn't asserting that, either. I agree force projection is generally more complex than the example I gave, but I don't see how that discredits the example. The essense of force projection is being able to apply pressure (primarily military) to achieve a political end, even when it doesn't involve actual combat - and my example illustrated that.

It doesn't discredit the example, it's just that the example doesn't convey much information about what its presence there will actually do or achieve.

[Dauphin]

As another consideration - take UN peacekeepers. The cliche is that you could send 1,000 troops to a war torn area and they are trained and able to keep the peace if allowed to do their job. Logistics, economics and other practical problems can all be overcome. Yet due to various other concerns (such as rules of engagement) their hands are tied and a load of people die.