"Let me be perfectly clear...make no mistake about it": Syria Edition

[Hauldren Collider]

Fact: that's pretty damn stupid. The EU nations add up to the second largest military spenders on the planet after the US. Britain alone is number 4. Just because we don't keep spent at quite such a ridiculous rate as America does not mean that we are incapable of waging terrifying war against our enemies when the need arises.

You're #4, but you still don't spend nearly enough. We spend more than we should, partly to make up for your shortfall. The RAF and RN have been gutted by cuts. It's nice that Britain is building two new real carriers so that we can reposition our forces towards the Pacific , but you guys need to work on your logistics.

Also, props on buying new tankers , but they haven't arrived yet.

[Hauldren Collider]

It appears Obama disagreed. Then again he does seem to be the only person genuinely interested in getting payback for atrocities against America.

We got our payback for Lockerbie in 1986 under Reagan.

[Hauldren Collider]

Do you genuinely believe some ridiculous fairy story that Europe started a war and then ran out of everything and so the US had to step in to save them? Do you realize how ****ing stupid that really is?

Europe has the forces, what it doesn't have is the logistics. Pretty much everyone in NATO relies on US airlift, sealift, and air refueling, and especially our electronic warfare, as you can see by the percentages given by the article I linked.

I'm sure that if World War III came around and lasted for more than 12 hours (i.e. no nukes), then Europe would eventually develop the necessary logistics after a fair bit of misery. But at the moment, it's lacking.

[kentonio]

You're #4, but you still don't spend nearly enough. We spend more than we should, partly to make up for your shortfall. The RAF and RN have been gutted by cuts. It's nice that Britain is building two new real carriers so that we can reposition our forces towards the Pacific , but you guys need to work on your logistics.

Also, props on buying new tankers , but they haven't arrived yet.

Don't spend nearly enough?!? What exactly do you think the point of military spending is for goodness sake? The top two spenders are the US and EU. We should burn through a few more hundreds of billions to see which of us can outspend the other?

[kentonio]

We got our payback for Lockerbie in 1986 under Reagan.

Payback that left Ghaddafi sitting in Tripoli laughing at you.

[DinoDoc]

It appears Obama disagreed.

Plenty of presidents have flawed foreign policies.

Then again he does seem to be the only person genuinely interested in getting payback for atrocities against America.

The war wasn't sold to the American people as a crusade of blood vengeance rather it was marketed as duty to protect innocent civilians from a local tyrant bent on killing them. A principle if we're to believe was important we shamefully threw in the trash when it came to Syria.

[Hauldren Collider]

Don't spend nearly enough?!? What exactly do you think the point of military spending is for goodness sake? The top two spenders are the US and EU. We should burn through a few more hundreds of billions to see which of us can outspend the other?

No, obviously US spending should go down and EU spending should go up.

Payback that left Ghaddafi sitting in Tripoli laughing at you.

I don't care that he's laughing at me. He couldn't do **** to us. I'm not that vindictive. We punished him and he learned not to try to attack us again.

[kentonio]

Plenty of presidents have flawed foreign policies.

Killing Bin Laden and helping topple Ghaddafi were 'flawed' policies?

The war wasn't sold to the American people as a crusade of blood vengeance rather it was marketed as duty to protect innocent civilians from a local tyrant bent on killing them. A principle if we're to believe was important we shamefully threw in the trash when it came to Syria.

Why would you give a ****? You invaded Iraq for pretty much no reason after all.

[giblets]

And the British happily joined in the invasion for pretty much no reason at all

[kentonio]

Europe has the forces, what it doesn't have is the logistics. Pretty much everyone in NATO relies on US airlift, sealift, and air refueling, and especially our electronic warfare, as you can see by the percentages given by the article I linked.

I'm sure that if World War III came around and lasted for more than 12 hours (i.e. no nukes), then Europe would eventually develop the necessary logistics after a fair bit of misery. But at the moment, it's lacking.

Dude, Europe has logistics are are suited to the missions we expect to perform. For the UK that involves insuring constant provisions for the Falkland amongst other places. The EU has little or no interest in waging aggressive wars, and on the occasion we do want to launch interventions, we draw upon coalitions that yes include America. It's called being part of a group of nations with common goals, it's not a competition where you're a ***** unless you can launch an invasion within 24 hours.

No, obviously US spending should go down and EU spending should go up.

We're absolutely fine with only being the second highest spenders thanks.

[kentonio]

And the British happily joined in the invasion for pretty much no reason at all

An out of control Prime Minister did, against the wishes of a huge proportion of the UK public. He and the US also had to lie to both our peoples to make that happen.

[DinoDoc]

helping topple Ghaddafi were 'flawed' policies?

Getting involved in a war desired by Europeans that seems to have served no discernible national security interest of the US is a flawed foreign policy initiative IMO.

Why would you give a ****? You invaded Iraq for pretty much no reason after all.

I wasn't a supporter of the Iraq War. Largely for reasons of realism.

[kentonio]

Getting involved in a war desired by Europeans that seems to have served no discernible national security interest of the US is a flawed foreign policy initiative IMO.

Funny that America expected Europe to help with a series of conflicts that had basically nothing to do with us. I guess NATO should just serve America's interests, not those of other member states?

[regexcellent]

Do you genuinely believe some ridiculous fairy story that Europe started a war and then ran out of everything and so the US had to step in to save them? Do you realize how ****ing stupid that really is?

Yes. The US had to lend stocks of bombs. He's dead on accurate. It sounds ****ing stupid but that's how stupid your ministry of defense is.

Britain may be building two new carriers but one is getting mothballed immediately and I'm not sure that the RN has the oilers to keep the other one and her escorts at sea.

Even if Britain didn't need US help with logistics, since we're the only ones who get logistics, the fact that you don't have sufficient tankers, UAVs, and radar aircraft to conduct an air war is damning.

[kentonio]

Even if Britain didn't need US help with logistics, since we're the only ones who get logistics, the fact that you don't have sufficient tankers, UAVs, and radar aircraft to conduct an air war is damning.

I'm still waiting for some evidence to backup this myth about Europe not having the logistics to support an air war. As I already pointed out to HC, we keep military capabilities that match our needs, which include a number of other permanent assignments. The whole point of being part of a military coalition is to ensure that each country doesn't need to maintain a wildly unrealistic level of military spending. The fact that the US does it anyway says more about you guys than it does about us.