Will Georgia turn into a Moscow satellite?

[DanS]

That McClatchy article might be correct on the facts, but dreadfully misses the point. The import of what Bush said was that the Russians couldn't continue to blockade Georgia or tear ass around Poti without eventually running into the US Navy on a "humanitarian mission." The import of the air portion was that the Russians couldn't continue to hold the Georgian airspace without eventually running into the US Air Force on a "humanitarian mission."

[Lancer]

Originally posted by GePap


Given that the French and Germans both have had far more experience with war in the last 100 years than the US has had, calling them "wimps" is a patently moronic. The French in particular have hardly been PC in their foreign policy, specially in Africa. But given that in truth it would be them, and not the US, that would bear the brunt of fighting on the Central European Plain, I can see why both would be far less sanguine than the poor Eastern Europeans they would have to bail out, and Americans sitting 3000 miles + away from the conflict.

Good for them for having common sense.

I remember sitting alot closer to potential conflict than most of the european people I and tens of thousands of other Americans were protecting during the soviet era. The US military has been front and center through two world wars and countless brushwars and I've seen the endless lines of graves at Arlington of the price paid for that commitment to freedom. At the same time the US was financially paying the price for the defense of europe during the cold war the europeans were continueously cutting military budgets as if they were the ones living 3000 miles away, and as if the democracy they ended up with after countless millions dead was of no value to them. It was only after eastern europe became free that I saw nations commited to keeping their freedom, because they knew the value of it. Not the French and Germans, but the Poles and Czechs. In the face of renewed Russian aggression it is the US that these nations can expect to step up, not the French and Germans, I can assure you of that GePap.

[onodera]

Originally posted by Lancer
With every passing year I become more in favor of reestablishing the Byzantine empire.

We've almost done that. Istanbul was practically in our hands once. Damn Brits forced us to stay back. If you think the US should support our reconquest of Byzantium, we will gladly accept your help.
I don't think MarkG will be happy with Russians ruling Greece, though.

[Lancer]

Hmm, maybe we could work something out. You take Turkey and we take all those troublesome little oil states.

[techumseh]

http://english.aljazeera.net/news/americas/2008/08/2008812204333715324.html

[BeBMan]

Originally posted by notyoueither
What was the French problem with defending Turkey from attack from Iraq? Surely they were not afraid of bearing the brunt of any fighting.

You mean before the 2003 thing? Then the problem wasn't a military one.

[Saras]

Originally posted by onodera
I don't think MarkG will be happy with Russians ruling Greece, though.

Doh, just as any sane person

[onodera]

Did you just call me insane?

[Saras]

[GePap]

Originally posted by DanS
That McClatchy article might be correct on the facts, but dreadfully misses the point. The import of what Bush said was that the Russians couldn't continue to blockade Georgia or tear ass around Poti without eventually running into the US Navy on a "humanitarian mission." The import of the air portion was that the Russians couldn't continue to hold the Georgian airspace without eventually running into the US Air Force on a "humanitarian mission."

And in the end, the Pentagon comes out right after Bush and says "The US WILL NOT engage Russia militarily over this," which means that Bush's words were EMPTY words. No much "import" for empty threats.

[GePap]

Originally posted by Lancer


I remember sitting alot closer to potential conflict than most of the european people I and tens of thousands of other Americans were protecting during the soviet era.

What, and the hundreds of thousands of German troops on the line weren't protecting anyone during the cold war? I don't think any people were closer to "potential conflict" than those who happened to live in the Fulda Gap. Who were they? Oh, I forgot, Germans.

The US military has been front and center through two world wars and countless brushwars and I've seen the endless lines of graves at Arlington of the price paid for that commitment to freedom.

What, and the French and Germans weren't "front and center" for two world wars? Yeah, those two people have NO IDEA what we the US went through in those wars. I mean, its not like they were actually on the battlefield or anything.... As for brush wars, I think the French have had plenty of post-WW2 experience with those too.

Also, given that almost as many French soldiers died in WW1 as American soldiers have died in all of America's wars combine (including the Civil War, where Americans happened to make up both sides), talking about war dead to paint the French or Germans as 'wimps" is a bit myopic.

At the same time the US was financially paying the price for the defense of europe during the cold war the europeans were continueously cutting military budgets as if they were the ones living 3000 miles away, and as if the democracy they ended up with after countless millions dead was of no value to them.

The US chose to spend what it did on defense. You can't blame others for our decisions. Sorry to break it to you, but the US did not have any particular interests in getting our allies to spend way more on militarization - that would upend the whole, the US is the sole Western Superpower bit.

It was only after eastern europe became free that I saw nations commited to keeping their freedom, because they knew the value of it. Not the French and Germans, but the Poles and Czechs. In the face of renewed Russian aggression it is the US that these nations can expect to step up, not the French and Germans, I can assure you of that GePap.

You really think Poland and the Czech Republic spend more GDP on defense than France???

[Lancer]

We are in no position to engage Russia over militarily this. We didn't expect this sort of Mongol adventurism out of Moscow any more. We'll be ready next time however.

Putin just said that Russia needs to renew its ties with Cuba btw. Yup, here we go. Russia won't catch us with our pants down again! (I hope)

[Lancer]

Originally posted by GePap


What, and the hundreds of thousands of German troops on the line weren't protecting anyone during the cold war? I don't think any people were closer to "potential conflict" than those who happened to live in the Fulda Gap. Who were they? Oh, I forgot, Germans.

I did say 'most'.

The US military has been front and center through two world wars and countless brushwars and I've seen the endless lines of graves at Arlington of the price paid for that commitment to freedom.

What, and the French and Germans weren't "front and center" for two world wars? Yeah, those two people have NO IDEA what we the US went through in those wars. I mean, its not like they were actually on the battlefield or anything.... As for brush wars, I think the French have had plenty of post-WW2 experience with those too.

Sure, but for freedom of others?

Also, given that almost as many French soldiers died in WW1 as American soldiers have died in all of America's wars combine (including the Civil War, where Americans happened to make up both sides), talking about war dead to paint the French or Germans as 'wimps" is a bit myopic.

Again, they were fighting for survival. Any rat will fight when cornered. The US fought in Europe for the freedom if its peoples. THAT is stepping up.

At the same time the US was financially paying the price for the defense of europe during the cold war the europeans were continueously cutting military budgets as if they were the ones living 3000 miles away, and as if the democracy they ended up with after countless millions dead was of no value to them.

The US chose to spend what it did on defense. You can't blame others for our decisions. Sorry to break it to you, but the US did not have any particular interests in getting our allies to spend way more on militarization - that would upend the whole, the US is the sole Western Superpower bit.

We pushed and preasured and shamed them to fulfill their NATO obligations to defend themselves and were even successful once in a while. If not, we did their job for them.



You really think Poland and the Czech Republic spend more GDP on defense than France???

As a percentage of GDP, yes of course.

[Kontiki]

Originally posted by Lancer


As a percentage of GDP, yes of course.

Not according to the CIA:

Czech Republic: 1.46%
Poland: 1.71%
France: 2.6%

[GePap]

Originally posted by Lancer
Sure, but for freedom of others?

We didn't join WW2 for anyone's freedom - we were attacked by Japan and the Germans declared war on the US.

As for WW1, the US joined to prevent a German victory. Yes, Wilson himself might have actually believed in spreading American values, but there were real world politik reasons we got involved. The aftermath of that war shows just how much "freedom" actually got spread.

Again, they were fighting for survival. Any rat will fight when cornered. The US fought in Europe for the freedom if its peoples. THAT is stepping up.

1. Look above for the "freedom" bit.
2. Actually, technically the Germans were fighting for "oppression", not "survival." That certainly makes them more bad-ass than the US in both those wars.

As a percentage of GDP, yes of course.

https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/rankorder/2034rank.html

wrong:
France: 2.6% (2005)
Poland: 1.7% (2005)
Czech Republic: 1.5% (2007)