Russia/Ukraine

Status
Not open for further replies.
Small Team Bacsi said:
Heather you did not originate the questioning of NATO in this way. The last admin did. And now it’s kind of Trump land foreign policy. That’s not political that is historical. And this whine about budget is at the top of the list of complaints..

Another way to gut NATO. Make it about euros not troops ready to fight and american leadership.

If we ever deploy troops to a shooting war in Europe and kids with parents on this forum are deploying to combat the very last thing we will be worrying about is cost or budget or who paid what.

Budget becomes the excuse to down grade NATO not the reason.

And we won’t be worrying about the cost of deploying the 1st and 2nd MarDiv to Europe just as quickly as we can either.
Click to expand...
I don’t want my son going to fight when other countries don’t put forth their fair contribution in terms of money, weapons, or men/women.

Nor do I want to protect a non-Nato country that is corrupt. And where current officials are connected to that corruption.

Nor do I want to work to protect Germany from Russia while Germany and Russia have economic agreements.

Nato runs on their reputation. We need to rethink its value.

American majority does not support war.
 
No one supports all NATO countries paying exactly their fare share to be in NATO any more than Putin does. Russia would love to see this insisted upon.

This also now reflects the thinking of some or much of the Republican Party, So it may be the way of the future.

Time will tell if this budget first approach to NATO and we only work with good guys , works in the long run for the US or not.

What we have done so far has worked.
 
Small Team Bacsi said:
No one supports all NATO countries paying exactly their fare share to be in NATO any more than Putin does. Russia would love to see this insisted upon.

This also now reflects the thinking of some or much of the Republican Party, So it may be the way of the future.

Time will tell if this budget first approach to NATO and we only work with good guys , works in the long run for the US or not.

What we have done so far has worked.
Click to expand...

At least Putin is looking after US taxpayer interest. ;)

Russia didn’t do this during the Trump administration. They did do it during Obama and Biden administrations. So I am not sure we can blame politics.

I wonder how Russia feels about the bounty hoax or the collusion with Trump hoax. I suspect that can’t be happy with playing the evil bad guy for political gain.
 
Germany sold its soul and basically gave up its sovereignty for a pipeline. Maybe they should have thought twice about doing business with a country that raped 2 million of their women.

It would be great if the US could exert some leadership among the NATO members to stand up to Russia. But leading NATO member countries is like tying to herd cats. So there is only so much the US can do.
 
NJROTC-CC said:
I don’t see US NATO policy as a partisan issue at all, nor should foreign policy be. We need to stop fighting each other and pull together to fight the real real enemies.
Click to expand...
I agree. Just meant it as a joke, as sometimes these threads can derail.
 
Humey said:
NATO is there to protect Europe, not the rest of the world
Click to expand...
I get that. I do.
When the good old USA drags NATO into say, Somalia, then NATO should say "but we're only here to protect Europe!".
 
cb7893 said:
Or at least spend more time reading and less time creating strawmen out of cable news blather.
Click to expand...
In the spirit of pulling together... I figured out the cable news formula. Test it out yourself.

Aside from the POTUS (current and priors) dominating the top headlines:

A. Every day, check FoxNews dot com and you'll find 1.) a minority mug shot and 2.) a lady in a bikini or sexy outfit.
B. Every day check CNN dot com and you'll find COVID/Pandemic dominating the headlines.
C. The Special of the Day will include spinning a current event (ex: Ukraine/Russia) their direction

They know how to feed their audiences what they want to eat.
 
THParent said:
Okay, I get the war thing, but NATO was formed for protection (granted, it was only for the member nations) but we as the United States decided to appoint ourselves the world's police and reach all over the place dragging NATO with us sometimes (I'm thinking Somalia here).

Bangladesh was a systematic rape and killing of women (because women were deemed to be public property) and murdering of intellectuals.
NATO was nowhere to be found there. Oops. Millions dead.

Cambodia's genocide was carried out by the Khmer Rouge and NATO had nothing to do with it.
We actually supported the Khmer Rouge, though. I guess we thought that since they were enemies of the Viet Cong, they must be our friends. Hundreds of thousands dead there. Oops.

When the Rwanda thing started, NATO pulled troops out of Rwanda. Oops. Millions dead.

There are quite a few times when I don't think that politicians should be calling the shots with these things, but then I start thinking that I don't want a bunch of George Pattons running around unchecked, either. It's a conundrum. :confused:
Click to expand...
-- Why would NATO intervene in those conflicts you cited? I think you mean United Nations, regarding Rwanda and Somalia in the 90's.
-- How did US support Khmer Rouge?
 
NJROTC-CC said:
Germany sold its soul and basically gave up its sovereignty for a pipeline. Maybe they should have thought twice about doing business with a country that raped 2 million of their women.
Click to expand...
The same would apply to Russians with the massacre Nazi Germany inflicted upon them.

As much as we groan about Germany not standing up or doing anything, I think it's also largely a byproduct of European history. Should the Germans stand up and involve themselves, Putin has the propaganda machine already primed that Germany is coming for Russia again. The routing of the arms shipment around Germany from the UK wasn't just a pacifistic ploy by the Germans; it helps prevent Russian propaganda from improving the invasion case as a bulwark against German meddling. Will it matter? Who knows. But for Europeans, whenever the German military is involved, EVERYONE gets nervous. In that lens, talk of insufficient funding under NATO treaties or taking a leadership position in accordance with their economic position is pretty deliberate and not (only) for calming European nerves.

I'm not going to pretend to have expertise in NATO and the regional politics so anyone viewing it from the American POV is missing a whole lot of context and understanding for the history of the continent. It's really a problem for Americans and analyzing world politics in regions with thousands of years of history (e.g. middle east, east asia, etc.). It may seem so strange to us that the largest economy in Europe can't seem to muster the will to challenge Russian adventurism but for Europeans, that's not how they view the picture.

February is around the corner and the March rasputitsa isn't far behind. I feel for Ukrainian soldiers.
 
CatDog99 said:
-- How did US support Khmer Rouge?
Click to expand...
We didn't really support them. It was more a case of the enemy (Cambodia) of my enemy (Vietnam) is maybe not so bad. A similar situation concerning Iraq/Sadaam and Iran/Khomeini in the Iraq/Iran conflict. Cambodia, like Iraq, fired the first shots of those conflicts.
 
CatDog99 said:
-- Why would NATO intervene in those conflicts you cited? I think you mean United Nations, regarding Rwanda and Somalia in the 90's.
-- How did US support Khmer Rouge?
Click to expand...
I stand corrected.

Somalia in the 90's was U.N. (mostly the U.S., Australia, Canada, France, Germany, Norway, Spain, Turkey, Sweden, Italy, and Great Britain) ---> which you know, is NATO. So I was sort of right, still. ;)

Rwanda saw a pullout of U.N. troops before the genocide began. I got that one wrong. Dang my memory!

NATO ships and aircraft patrolled the seas off the Horn of Africa (Operation Ocean Shield) from 2009 to 2016 to keep shipping safe from Somali pirates.

As for the Khmer Rouge, the U.S. pitched in with China to covertly support the Khmer Rouge because they were fighting against the Viet Cong, which were in turn supported by their alliance with the USSR. It's well documented and It happened in my lifetime when you could read the news and it was actually true (mostly).
 
Humey said:
The federal judge forced Bidens hand so he doesn't get credit for opening up new oil fields.
Click to expand...
I'm not crediting anyone for anything.

I said this statement:
Humey said:
relying more heavily on Russian energy resources. Which seems to be the US policy also. Reduce oil production in the US so that we can rely on foreign oil although I realize the end goal is to rely on renewable energy regardless of the cost
Click to expand...
which is blatantly false. I gave you two charts regarding production of Crude oil and Nat Gas. Here is a third one concerning Imports/Exports of crude oil and products. Anyone who doesn't know what Nat gas exports have done has no business in the conversation.

If you're point is to suggest that the Biden administration is ceding our US energy independence, you may want want to send Gov DeSantis a letter and ask him when drilling will begin off the Florida Coast.

chart (1).png
 
cb7893 said:
I'm not crediting anyone for anything.

I said this statement:

which is blatantly false. I gave you two charts regarding production of Crude oil and Nat Gas. Here is a third one concerning Imports/Exports of crude oil and products. Anyone who doesn't know what Nat gas exports have done has no business in the conversation.

If you're point is to suggest that the Biden administration is ceding our US energy independence, you may want want to send Gov DeSantis a letter and ask him when drilling will begin off the Florida Coast.

View attachment 11084
Click to expand...
Your last comment said that my articles dated Jany 2021 were superseded by your articles dated Nov 21 because it said that Biden had the largest oil lease auction ever. However, if you read the article you highlighted, it showed the Biden was forced to continue the lease program and wanted to stop it. Therefore your proof of how i was wrong only supported my argument. Then you completely ignore it and go on to another point. As for your latest chart, it basically stops in 2020 when Biden wasn't even president.

This will be my last comment to you. I have to say that you have been rude and in a way that everyone is wrong and only you are right. But even more so, if we are wrong, it's to give out false information on purpose. You seem exasperated when you comment
 
Last edited:
Total U.S. annual primary energy net imports (imports minus exports) generally increased in most years since the mid-1950s and reached a record high in 2005, equal to about 30% of total U.S. energy consumption. Since 2005, total annual energy imports have decreased and total energy exports have increased. The United States became a net total energy exporter in 2019 for the first time since 1952 and maintained that position in 2020 even though both total energy production and consumption were lower in 2020 than in 2019. Total U.S. energy exports exceeded total energy imports by 3.46 quadrillion British thermal units (quads) in 2020, the largest margin on record. U.S. energy exports in 2020 totaled 23.47 quads, and energy imports fell 13% to 20.0 quads, the lowest level since 1992.

So whatever we need to do to go back to that - and lower our heat and auto gas prices - would be better. Less dependence on foreign countries.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top