| Trumps having another brain fart 12:11 - Jul 11 with 4334 views | giant_stow |
.too many things going on to keep up at the moment! |  |
| |  |
| Trumps having another brain fart on 14:23 - Jul 11 with 1363 views | giant_stow |
| Trumps having another brain fart on 14:11 - Jul 11 by StokieBlue |
I disagree. Europes armed forces are so comparibly weak because they decided to spend the money giving their citizens a better standard of life knowing they were under the US umbrella whilst US citizens didn't get those benefits because they were paying for the European citizens defence.
That's not subservience, if anything it's parasitic (althought I wouldn't go that far myself).
The Europeans needed NATO to protect them from the USSR, independently they had absolutely no chance of stopping any attacks so surely it suited the Europeans more than the Americans who were quite safe? I would argue that continued existence as an independent country outweights the worry of the spread of communism.
SB |
It suited the Americans for Europe to not become communist - they fought long terrible wars over less important places, so it was clearly in US self-interest to stop that happening in Europe. That was the deal and it also kept Europe from becoming a rival military power - priceless. | |
| |
| Trumps having another brain fart on 14:24 - Jul 11 with 1361 views | chicoazul |
| Trumps having another brain fart on 14:02 - Jul 11 by StokieBlue |
Because Europe doesn't want to pay for it's defence?
It's also not entirely true, it serves a purpose for smaller countries. For instance, if Ukraine was a member I doubt Russia would have waltzed in and done whatever they liked.
SB |
This implies Russia would invade e.g. Estonia if it wasnt part of NATO which I simply dont think is true at all. Crimea historically was part of Russia for over 100 years.
The fact is NATO was formed in response to the Russian threat which now no longer exists. |  |
| |
| Trumps having another brain fart on 14:24 - Jul 11 with 1360 views | giant_stow |
| Trumps having another brain fart on 14:13 - Jul 11 by No9 |
The point is that America has tried very hard to make Europe subservient and has not hesitated in damaging European interests where it thinks appropriate.
It is obvious that Trump is on a sales missoin which, if it falls flat will mean a number of difficulties for the EU.
It should not go unoticed that many of they in the brexit group have not been slow to side with the American right (who are behind this) via some organisations such as Atlantic bridge, now in name defunct- but not I fear, in spirit. |
I see what you're getting at, but it seems we're in the minority! | |
| |
| Trumps having another brain fart on 14:25 - Jul 11 with 1352 views | Swansea_Blue |
| Trumps having another brain fart on 13:53 - Jul 11 by StokieBlue |
That's really not true though ullaa, can you expand on how Europe has been subservient to the US as I don't think it's true.
SB |
Nothing to see here! [Post edited 11 Jul 2018 14:26]
|  |
| |
| Trumps having another brain fart on 14:26 - Jul 11 with 1347 views | StokieBlue |
| Trumps having another brain fart on 14:23 - Jul 11 by giant_stow |
It suited the Americans for Europe to not become communist - they fought long terrible wars over less important places, so it was clearly in US self-interest to stop that happening in Europe. That was the deal and it also kept Europe from becoming a rival military power - priceless. |
How would Europe, a collection of states, become a rival military power? The EU could possibly have been that though.
It would have also meant a lower standard of living for Europeans given they would have had to spend a lot more money on defence.
SB [Post edited 11 Jul 2018 14:26]
|  |
| Avatar - IC410 - Tadpoles Nebula |
| |
| Trumps having another brain fart on 14:28 - Jul 11 with 1340 views | StokieBlue |
| Trumps having another brain fart on 14:24 - Jul 11 by chicoazul |
This implies Russia would invade e.g. Estonia if it wasnt part of NATO which I simply dont think is true at all. Crimea historically was part of Russia for over 100 years.
The fact is NATO was formed in response to the Russian threat which now no longer exists. |
Crimea was part of Russia for 140 years and then part of Ukraine within the USSR since 1950's.
By that logic should the UK go around annexing parts of the globe that used to be part of the British Empire pre-1950?
I know that's not really the point but your example isn't great. You could easily argue that the Russian threat doesn't exist anymore but NATO as an alliance could still be worthwhile.
Guess we will find out if JC gets in and Trump is still annoyed - it could easily disolve then.
SB [Post edited 11 Jul 2018 14:32]
| |
| Avatar - IC410 - Tadpoles Nebula |
| |
| Trumps having another brain fart on 14:33 - Jul 11 with 1337 views | giant_stow |
| Trumps having another brain fart on 14:24 - Jul 11 by chicoazul |
This implies Russia would invade e.g. Estonia if it wasnt part of NATO which I simply dont think is true at all. Crimea historically was part of Russia for over 100 years.
The fact is NATO was formed in response to the Russian threat which now no longer exists. |
Fair dos but that doesn't explain why the likes of Sweden is sending round leaflets to the population on what to do in a national emergency. Russia's actions have made it's neighbours nervous. [Post edited 11 Jul 2018 14:34]
| |
| |
| Trumps having another brain fart on 14:35 - Jul 11 with 1331 views | No9 |
| Trumps having another brain fart on 14:24 - Jul 11 by giant_stow |
I see what you're getting at, but it seems we're in the minority! |
I'm sure we are. But, as an example; pre Reagan days a lot of European countries relied on America for all sorts of things:- as civil aircraft, cars (NL was all American cars running on LPG) engineering & construction companies - Foster Wheeler et al, as well as militaria (which I don't think some EU countries were allowed to make).
As the EU prospered the Americans lost a massive market to European competitors - Airbus , Mercedes, BMW, Heerema, Saipem, Bouygues & a whole host of others. Not only that their O&G companies have had considerable competition from EU companies.
Reagan pi$$ed off a lot of EU countries who realised America may not be the rfriend they though.
Closure of Amrican bases in European countries has brough about new & non American investment.
The pictrue is big |  | | |
Login to get fewer ads
| Trumps having another brain fart on 14:35 - Jul 11 with 1330 views | giant_stow |
| Trumps having another brain fart on 14:26 - Jul 11 by StokieBlue |
How would Europe, a collection of states, become a rival military power? The EU could possibly have been that though.
It would have also meant a lower standard of living for Europeans given they would have had to spend a lot more money on defence.
SB [Post edited 11 Jul 2018 14:26]
|
Germany on it's own was considered so dangerous that they split the fcker in two! Imagine if that manufacturing prowess was spent on military production. It would take much... | |
| |
| Trumps having another brain fart on 14:39 - Jul 11 with 1325 views | chicoazul |
| Trumps having another brain fart on 14:33 - Jul 11 by giant_stow |
Fair dos but that doesn't explain why the likes of Sweden is sending round leaflets to the population on what to do in a national emergency. Russia's actions have made it's neighbours nervous. [Post edited 11 Jul 2018 14:34]
|
Got to have a bogeyman brother. Si vis pacem para bellum.
France could easily wipe Russia out on their own if they were so minded never mind NATO's combined might. There is just no point to it anymore. | |
| |
| Trumps having another brain fart on 14:41 - Jul 11 with 1321 views | chicoazul |
| Trumps having another brain fart on 14:28 - Jul 11 by StokieBlue |
Crimea was part of Russia for 140 years and then part of Ukraine within the USSR since 1950's.
By that logic should the UK go around annexing parts of the globe that used to be part of the British Empire pre-1950?
I know that's not really the point but your example isn't great. You could easily argue that the Russian threat doesn't exist anymore but NATO as an alliance could still be worthwhile.
Guess we will find out if JC gets in and Trump is still annoyed - it could easily disolve then.
SB [Post edited 11 Jul 2018 14:32]
|
Ugggh God of course not. I didnt say it was a *good* thing that Russia went in, I simply tried to explain why and give context. I get so massively tired of this "so what you're actually saying is..." form of argument. | |
| |
| Trumps having another brain fart on 14:44 - Jul 11 with 1309 views | giant_stow |
| Trumps having another brain fart on 14:39 - Jul 11 by chicoazul |
Got to have a bogeyman brother. Si vis pacem para bellum.
France could easily wipe Russia out on their own if they were so minded never mind NATO's combined might. There is just no point to it anymore. |
France could do Russia?! That seems hard to believe....
Once again fair enough on bogeymen, maybe! | |
| |
| Trumps having another brain fart on 14:46 - Jul 11 with 1298 views | chicoazul |
| Trumps having another brain fart on 14:44 - Jul 11 by giant_stow |
France could do Russia?! That seems hard to believe....
Once again fair enough on bogeymen, maybe! |
Any country with Nukes could do any other country if they wanted to. | |
| |
| Trumps having another brain fart on 15:12 - Jul 11 with 1273 views | No9 |
| Trumps having another brain fart on 14:39 - Jul 11 by chicoazul |
Got to have a bogeyman brother. Si vis pacem para bellum.
France could easily wipe Russia out on their own if they were so minded never mind NATO's combined might. There is just no point to it anymore. |
Bogeymen are what governments use to tax us for stuff that may not be any good in 'protecting' us | | | |
| Trumps having another brain fart on 15:29 - Jul 11 with 1268 views | HennikerBlu |
| Trumps having another brain fart on 13:58 - Jul 11 by No9 |
Germany does take a lot of gas from Russia but ot can & does also tap into the stuff from the M.E that comes into the EU from the M.E. via Turkey - one of the reasons Turkey is important, & from N. Africa via Italy.
Germany & other EU countries have access to LNG via new re-gas terminals so they are nowhere near as reliant on Russian gas as trump suggests.
The point about what EU countries is valid but per the question I asked how much of this is due to restrictions placed after WW2 & would it mean relaxing any such restrictions IF the militaria is bought from the Americans? |
I think it will be interesting to see how the hard facts develop with regards to fuel from Russia, however, I did read that they were developing a separate fuel line direct and this was not going down well with the transit countries that will lose fees. The point still stands regarding how this fits with the Ukraine/Crimea and supposed sanctions on Russia.
All the Axis countries had heavy restrictions placed on them regarding the size of their militaries, what equipment they could manufacture and have. They were suitable and authorised for self defence only.
There is no doubt the US benefitted 'economically' from the sacrifice in 'blood and treasure' of its people in WW2, which it could have stayed out of. Post war, for Europe it provided a high level of security (especially from Nukes) which most would prefer to have, as opposed to being behind the Iron Curtain. The US also benefitted from its industrial capacity being intact, trading gold and oil in dollars; and the desire to get the world back on its feet so it could benefit from the trade in US goods.
Arguably, the countries that had the greatest restrictions on them benefitted economically the most as they were no longer investing in vast militaries and could turn their militarised industrial capacity to civilian use and; could apply for loans from the US at favourable rates under the Marshall Plan and its derivatives. Whilst the UK and France tried to hang on to the vestiges of Empire and lost out economically. France's unique relationship with the US should be seen against the backdrop of being out of NATO for 42 years, not re-joining until 2009 and having its armed forces almost completely equipped by its own industry.
Certainly, restrictions were strictly adhered to initially, whether they were relaxed in order to help US sales, I don't know but would not be surprised if it simply lead to an adjustment (write off) of obsolescence in older kit. The US would argue that equipping units for NATO use was to the benefit of defence as opposed to driving into Poland.
On balance the US has sought to benefit itself, but would any other power act differently or expected more? We only have to look to the Versailles Treaty for the answer to that question.
Of course it's an endless discussion if you include the aspect of the benefit of "the military industrial complex" (which needs an enemy) to the US, which is not a matter for paranoia, but understood by Eisenhower in his speech and Kennedy when he averted the missile crisis. | | | |
| Trumps having another brain fart on 15:34 - Jul 11 with 1262 views | giant_stow |
| Trumps having another brain fart on 15:29 - Jul 11 by HennikerBlu |
I think it will be interesting to see how the hard facts develop with regards to fuel from Russia, however, I did read that they were developing a separate fuel line direct and this was not going down well with the transit countries that will lose fees. The point still stands regarding how this fits with the Ukraine/Crimea and supposed sanctions on Russia.
All the Axis countries had heavy restrictions placed on them regarding the size of their militaries, what equipment they could manufacture and have. They were suitable and authorised for self defence only.
There is no doubt the US benefitted 'economically' from the sacrifice in 'blood and treasure' of its people in WW2, which it could have stayed out of. Post war, for Europe it provided a high level of security (especially from Nukes) which most would prefer to have, as opposed to being behind the Iron Curtain. The US also benefitted from its industrial capacity being intact, trading gold and oil in dollars; and the desire to get the world back on its feet so it could benefit from the trade in US goods.
Arguably, the countries that had the greatest restrictions on them benefitted economically the most as they were no longer investing in vast militaries and could turn their militarised industrial capacity to civilian use and; could apply for loans from the US at favourable rates under the Marshall Plan and its derivatives. Whilst the UK and France tried to hang on to the vestiges of Empire and lost out economically. France's unique relationship with the US should be seen against the backdrop of being out of NATO for 42 years, not re-joining until 2009 and having its armed forces almost completely equipped by its own industry.
Certainly, restrictions were strictly adhered to initially, whether they were relaxed in order to help US sales, I don't know but would not be surprised if it simply lead to an adjustment (write off) of obsolescence in older kit. The US would argue that equipping units for NATO use was to the benefit of defence as opposed to driving into Poland.
On balance the US has sought to benefit itself, but would any other power act differently or expected more? We only have to look to the Versailles Treaty for the answer to that question.
Of course it's an endless discussion if you include the aspect of the benefit of "the military industrial complex" (which needs an enemy) to the US, which is not a matter for paranoia, but understood by Eisenhower in his speech and Kennedy when he averted the missile crisis. |
interesting read, ta. | |
| |
| Trumps having another brain fart on 15:34 - Jul 11 with 1261 views | StokieBlue |
| Trumps having another brain fart on 14:41 - Jul 11 by chicoazul |
Ugggh God of course not. I didnt say it was a *good* thing that Russia went in, I simply tried to explain why and give context. I get so massively tired of this "so what you're actually saying is..." form of argument. |
I never said you did say it was a good thing, I also don't believe I did what you are claiming with regards to the argument.
SB | |
| Avatar - IC410 - Tadpoles Nebula |
| |
| Trumps having another brain fart on 15:43 - Jul 11 with 1244 views | No9 |
| Trumps having another brain fart on 15:29 - Jul 11 by HennikerBlu |
I think it will be interesting to see how the hard facts develop with regards to fuel from Russia, however, I did read that they were developing a separate fuel line direct and this was not going down well with the transit countries that will lose fees. The point still stands regarding how this fits with the Ukraine/Crimea and supposed sanctions on Russia.
All the Axis countries had heavy restrictions placed on them regarding the size of their militaries, what equipment they could manufacture and have. They were suitable and authorised for self defence only.
There is no doubt the US benefitted 'economically' from the sacrifice in 'blood and treasure' of its people in WW2, which it could have stayed out of. Post war, for Europe it provided a high level of security (especially from Nukes) which most would prefer to have, as opposed to being behind the Iron Curtain. The US also benefitted from its industrial capacity being intact, trading gold and oil in dollars; and the desire to get the world back on its feet so it could benefit from the trade in US goods.
Arguably, the countries that had the greatest restrictions on them benefitted economically the most as they were no longer investing in vast militaries and could turn their militarised industrial capacity to civilian use and; could apply for loans from the US at favourable rates under the Marshall Plan and its derivatives. Whilst the UK and France tried to hang on to the vestiges of Empire and lost out economically. France's unique relationship with the US should be seen against the backdrop of being out of NATO for 42 years, not re-joining until 2009 and having its armed forces almost completely equipped by its own industry.
Certainly, restrictions were strictly adhered to initially, whether they were relaxed in order to help US sales, I don't know but would not be surprised if it simply lead to an adjustment (write off) of obsolescence in older kit. The US would argue that equipping units for NATO use was to the benefit of defence as opposed to driving into Poland.
On balance the US has sought to benefit itself, but would any other power act differently or expected more? We only have to look to the Versailles Treaty for the answer to that question.
Of course it's an endless discussion if you include the aspect of the benefit of "the military industrial complex" (which needs an enemy) to the US, which is not a matter for paranoia, but understood by Eisenhower in his speech and Kennedy when he averted the missile crisis. |
There are a number of gas pipelines out of Russia that avoid problem areas not least the direct line into Rugen island and the lines to Norway which Blair signed up to.
https://britishbusinessenergy.co.uk/europe-natural-gas-network/
The Americans stuffed the UK when they put Germany under considerable pressure to but the Starfighter over the British option (Not the first or last time they stuffed the UK).
being independent of NATO probably made France more aware, not only of the need to spend on defence but also on the need not to chuck away shipyards etc.
I was aware there maybe restrictions on some countries - due to comments made by Germany about some of the UK's excusions in the M.E. but not what those restrictions are.
I am still very greatful Harold Wilson was not subservient to America | | | |
| Trumps having another brain fart on 16:08 - Jul 11 with 1228 views | HennikerBlu |
| Trumps having another brain fart on 15:43 - Jul 11 by No9 |
There are a number of gas pipelines out of Russia that avoid problem areas not least the direct line into Rugen island and the lines to Norway which Blair signed up to.
https://britishbusinessenergy.co.uk/europe-natural-gas-network/
The Americans stuffed the UK when they put Germany under considerable pressure to but the Starfighter over the British option (Not the first or last time they stuffed the UK).
being independent of NATO probably made France more aware, not only of the need to spend on defence but also on the need not to chuck away shipyards etc.
I was aware there maybe restrictions on some countries - due to comments made by Germany about some of the UK's excusions in the M.E. but not what those restrictions are.
I am still very greatful Harold Wilson was not subservient to America |
Fair points. Thanks for the link will have a read.
Hmmmmm TSR-2 dropped for F-111 that was in turned not purchased.
"Aeronautical engineer Sir Sydney Camm (designer of the Hawker Hurricane) said of the TSR-2: "All modern aircraft have four dimensions: span, length, height and politics. TSR-2 simply got the first three right." (From WikiP)
Well without getting into politics, especially on a day like today, could you imagine if we had got in to the Vietnam war, he saved a lot of service men and women. | | | |
| Trumps having another brain fart on 16:12 - Jul 11 with 1224 views | No9 |
| Trumps having another brain fart on 16:08 - Jul 11 by HennikerBlu |
Fair points. Thanks for the link will have a read.
Hmmmmm TSR-2 dropped for F-111 that was in turned not purchased.
"Aeronautical engineer Sir Sydney Camm (designer of the Hawker Hurricane) said of the TSR-2: "All modern aircraft have four dimensions: span, length, height and politics. TSR-2 simply got the first three right." (From WikiP)
Well without getting into politics, especially on a day like today, could you imagine if we had got in to the Vietnam war, he saved a lot of service men and women. |
We did get soem F111 - not very good were they however, in return we did get to build some ships for the American navy - which for a while I worked on with yard No's 363,364,36.
From what I recall of TSR2 it was an aircraft that didn't really have a function in a changing world and yes politics got in the way. | | | |
| |
By continuing to use the site, you agree to our use of cookies and to abide by our Terms and Conditions.
