AirWorthy99 wrote:

VSMUT wrote:

Don't come back begging the US to bail you out again (like you did twice in the last century).

The US played an important role in WWII, no doubt, but this is an amateurish assessment of the history of WWII - and I suspect about a million dead Russians on the Eastern front would disagree with this assessment, but I digress...

As for the 'they need us more than we need them' commentary - again, an amateurish assessment of global affairs layered with patriotic chest thumping. If you think the US doesn't reap rewards - material, opaque or otherwise - in the realm of national security from its investments in Europe etc. then you are kidding yourself. America won't benefit if the world goes to shit. So, while you may pout because you don't think Europeans kiss the ring of America frequently or passionately enough and use that as justification to advance some 'retreat, lock the hatches, f'ck them all - that'll show'em' foreign policy - it won't be to the benefit of the United States.

As for the OP - Canada and the US have a long, deep, economic, cultural and social relationship that is much bigger than one man - so, while the relationship will likely benefit from more predictability and less trade disputes, I don't see there being a massive change to what has been a long standing, mutually beneficial relationship that has survived different Presidents and PM's over the decades.

skyservice_330 wrote:

AirWorthy99 wrote:

VSMUT wrote:

Don't come back begging the US to bail you out again (like you did twice in the last century).

The US played an important role in WWII, no doubt, but this is an amateurish assessment of the history of WWII - and I suspect about a million dead Russians on the Eastern front would disagree with this assessment, but I digress...

As for the 'they need us more than we need them' commentary - again, an amateurish assessment of global affairs layered with patriotic chest thumping. If you think the US doesn't reap rewards - material, opaque or otherwise - in the realm of national security from its investments in Europe etc. then you are kidding yourself. America won't benefit if the world goes to shit. So, while you may pout because you don't think Europeans kiss the ring of America frequently or passionately enough and use that as justification to advance some 'retreat, lock the hatches, f'ck them all - that'll show'em' foreign policy - it won't be to the benefit of the United States.

As for the OP - Canada and the US have a long, deep, economic, cultural and social relationship that is much bigger than one man - so, while the relationship will likely benefit from more predictability and less trade disputes, I don't see there being a massive change to what has been a long standing, mutually beneficial relationship that has survived different Presidents and PM's over the decades.

Oh yes liberated by the glorious Red Army and uncle Joe. How did those nations that were “liberated” by the soviets fare after the war again?

You stated / implied / suggested that the US 'bailed out' Europe - and I simply noted that the US played an important role in defeating Nazi Germany - but that the Soviets in the East did not play an insignificant role either.

The comment was not in relation to what happened after the war re: the Soviets and the East - do try to keep up

skyservice_330 wrote:

You stated / implied / suggested that the US 'bailed out' Europe - and I simply noted that the US played an important role in defeating Nazi Germany - but that the Soviets in the East did not play an insignificant role either.

The comment was not in relation to what happened after the war re: the Soviets and the East - do try to keep up

OK bailing out, nice point, what role the Soviets had with the “Marshall plan”?

And did they deliver with any significant means to the betterment of Europe?

We know the answer. The US has been putting their neck out there for Europe always till this day.

The Soviets helped liberate Europe from the Nazi's. Any notion that the USA single handidly 'bailed out Europe' from Nazi oppression is incorrect. And that is what my comment was in relation to. If you want to start a thread about the period 1945 to present re: Soviet-Europe relations then have at it. Their actions post-1945 do not diminish or negate the military blood and sweat the Soviets spilled to liberate Europe.

As for 'putting their neck out there' - because it is in the US interest to do so. As noted, the world or Europe going to sh*t will not benefit the USA. Isolationist views may give you some good feelz to 'show those Europeans - this will teach them!' but they are shortsighted and self defeating.

skyservice_330 wrote:

The Soviets helped liberate Europe from the Nazi's. Any notion that the USA single handidly 'bailed out Europe' from Nazi oppression is incorrect. And that is what my comment was in relation to. If you want to start a thread about the period 1945 to present re: Soviet-Europe relations then have at it. Their actions post-1945 do not diminish or negate the military blood and sweat the Soviets spilled to liberate Europe.

As for 'putting their neck out there' - because it is in the US interest to do so. As noted, the world or Europe going to sh*t will not benefit the USA. Isolationist views may give you some good feelz to 'show those Europeans - this will teach them!' but they are shortsighted and self defeating.

Again liberating, if Hitler hadnt stabbed Stalin in the back and not invaded Soviet territory, very hard to had seen the Soviets help defeat Hitler. Many of those Soviets dead by Nazis died in Soviet territories the Nazis invaded.

Give the Soviets all the credit you like, it wasnt on the interest of “liberating” Europe.

bgm wrote:

stratosphere wrote:

Trump might be an A hole but at least he doesn't pretend to be something he's not.

He pretends to be everything he's not: a leader, competent, strong, intelligent, wealthy... need I go on?

Fit...healthy...sane...a business man...successful...literate...a medical expert...smarter than the generals...

Christ the sheer mental disorder suffered by Trump supporters is just.... It's mind blowing.

AirWorthy99 wrote:

Reinhardt wrote:

AirWorthy99 wrote:

Europe for sure can stand by itself. I would have hoped Trump pulls all troops from Europe. And heck, let NATO dissolve. Let Europe deal with Putin. Or better, let China help Europe deal with Putin once they pull back from Europe and NATO dissolves.

No you can't even defend yourself, you guys won't ever stop with your high quality of life and pay for your defense, whilst the US tax payer and other nations pay for your defense.

I just hope to see Europe calling the CCP for help when Putin is invading Estonia or any other Eastern European nation.

You need us, more than we ever need you.

Wow, nice attitude in this day and age.

Doesn't Russia often break international airspace around Alaska? I read yesterday that a Russian warship threatened to ram a US ship in international waters. So actually I think we share the same problem with Putin. I'm sure you probably don't believe in his attempts to influence foreign elections, but in Europe is proven and fact so again there's another thing we have in common. So actually NATO is still important and our group of nations have a vested interest in keeping Putin in his box.

As for China, well frankly it's an obsurdity to suggest Europe would go to China and ask for Military help. Never going to happen.

Yeah, the US should pay to protect our borders from Russia.

I as an American tax payer don't need to subsidize your high quality lifestyle of working 4 hours and spending the rest of your time at home thrashing the US, all the while you pay Putin for your energy.

No we don't need that, you can take care of yourself. Like I said you need us, more than we ever need you.

Exhibit A why Trump won but also couldn't manage his way out of a paper bag--he harnessed the absolute ugliest and dumbest lowest common denominator of the electorate and turned that white hot rage at any number of targets. But ultimately white rage accomplishes nothing, and now that entitled white grievance machine is turning in on itself. Why would anyone want that to lead...anything?

China must be ecstatic.

Spread a disease, buy up the debt, steal more jobs. Lovely.

keesje wrote:

I think the world is changing and the traditional powerplay of the last 200, 300 years might be on it's way out. Everybody is communicating with everybody 24/7, is easily relocating globally, adopting.

This is incorrect.
Most everybody is communicating inside his/her/its specific filterbubble at high exchange rates.
Any rumor accelerates in propagation until lightspeed is reached.
Then it only grows bigger

This seems to be much more pronounced on the far right / over the top conservatives / fundamental christians / trump fans.
( lots of overlap between those groups creating a fast race towards their own group hell.)

a certain painter of postcards shew that "political right" and "gullible" are synonymous.

He has learned and how could he ? He never paid the price for Iraq war . Yet I don't think he will have a chance to do anything anymore not the least bit because of his dementia.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rrLFQnlf6lQ&t=150s

AirWorthy99 wrote:

Europe for sure can stand by itself. I would have hoped Trump pulls all troops from Europe. And heck, let NATO dissolve. Let Europe deal with Putin. Or better, let China help Europe deal with Putin once they pull back from Europe and NATO dissolves.

No you can't even defend yourself, you guys won't ever stop with your high quality of life and pay for your defense, whilst the US tax payer and other nations pay for your defense.

I just hope to see Europe calling the CCP for help when Putin is invading Estonia or any other Eastern European nation.

You need us, more than we ever need you.

You actually pay more for health care than we do. Sad.

AirWorthy99 wrote:

Let Europe and the rest of the world sort their problems on their own. But unfortunately the 'conventional wisdom' is getting back to DC to implement America second. That's fine, lets see if in 2024 it stays.

So will you stop creating instability in the Middle East and sending refugees our way then?

AirWorthy99 wrote:

I as an American tax payer don't need to subsidize your high quality lifestyle of working 4 hours and spending the rest of your time at home thrashing the US, all the while you pay Putin for your energy.

No we don't need that, you can take care of yourself. Like I said you need us, more than we ever need you.

You aren't subsidizing anything. On the other hand, we are constantly subsidizing your military industrial complex and all the jobs the weapons manufacturers provide in the US. And as was proven recently in Denmark, you shamelessly spy on us to gain unfair advantages when competing against our own defense industry. Last I checked, the Danish government has also been duped into turning a Danish airbase into a base for USAF tankers at Danish expense.

Okie wrote:

Wow the Grand RE-OPENING of all the Benghazi Arms dealers is just 57 days away. Exciting times coming up.


Okie

Will support for Pakistan restart? Poor Taliban may run out of money otherwise.

Vladex wrote:

He has learned and how could he ? He never paid the price for Iraq war . Yet I don't think he will have a chance to do anything anymore not the least bit because of his dementia.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rrLFQnlf6lQ&t=150s

There were more than 25 nations involved in the MNF and you’re blaming Biden for the price of Iraq? Heard of PNAC? Impressive mental illness there.

skyservice_330 wrote:

Their actions post-1945 do not diminish or negate the military blood and sweat the Soviets spilled to liberate Europe.

What about their actions in 1939-1941 until their alliance with Hitler fell apart? There was nothing liberating about Soviet so called "liberation". It was export of communism, nothing more. Nothing is cheaper in Russia than human life, but it is extremely useful for emotional blackmail 80 years later.

L410Turbolet wrote:

skyservice_330 wrote:

Their actions post-1945 do not diminish or negate the military blood and sweat the Soviets spilled to liberate Europe.

What about their actions in 1939-1941 until their alliance with Hitler fell apart? There was nothing liberating about Soviet so called "liberation". It was export of communism, nothing more. Nothing is cheaper in Russia than human life, but it is extremely useful for emotional blackmail 80 years later.

Granted but to introduce some further nuance - would VE day have come in 1945 without the Red Army? Highly doubtful. There would not have been any young German males left by the time things were finished. Several things can be true at the same time - Stalin’s strategic designs on eastern Europe, Red Army barbarism, and incredible civilian suffering in Russia and its occupied states - all contributed to the fall of the Third Reich when it happened.

Aaron747 wrote:

Vladex wrote:

He has learned and how could he ? He never paid the price for Iraq war . Yet I don't think he will have a chance to do anything anymore not the least bit because of his dementia.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rrLFQnlf6lQ&t=150s

There were more than 25 nations involved in the MNF and you’re blaming Biden for the price of Iraq? Heard of PNAC? Impressive mental illness there.

I haven't heard of PNAC. Can you expand?

To the video:
These 1,5 min finally answer who Biden is:
https://youtu.be/rrLFQnlf6lQ&t=425s

So the military-industrial complex is back.
Let's see if some of those who believe Trump or his supporters lack intelligence soon wish him back.

Sokes wrote:

Aaron747 wrote:

Vladex wrote:

He has learned and how could he ? He never paid the price for Iraq war . Yet I don't think he will have a chance to do anything anymore not the least bit because of his dementia.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rrLFQnlf6lQ&t=150s

There were more than 25 nations involved in the MNF and you’re blaming Biden for the price of Iraq? Heard of PNAC? Impressive mental illness there.

I haven't heard of PNAC. Can you expand?

To the video:
These 1,5 min finally answer who Biden is:
https://youtu.be/rrLFQnlf6lQ&t=425s

So the military-industrial complex is back.
Let's see if some of those who believe Trump or his supporters lack intelligence soon wish him back.

Project for the New American Century - a guiding neoconservative foreign policy strategy document that influenced many advisers and key figures in the Bush 43 administration.

Sokes wrote:

Aaron747 wrote:

Vladex wrote:

He has learned and how could he ? He never paid the price for Iraq war . Yet I don't think he will have a chance to do anything anymore not the least bit because of his dementia.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rrLFQnlf6lQ&t=150s

There were more than 25 nations involved in the MNF and you’re blaming Biden for the price of Iraq? Heard of PNAC? Impressive mental illness there.

I haven't heard of PNAC. Can you expand?

To the video:
These 1,5 min finally answer who Biden is:
https://youtu.be/rrLFQnlf6lQ&t=425s

So the military-industrial complex is back.
Let's see if some of those who believe Trump or his supporters lack intelligence soon wish him back.

Wut. Military spending has climbed under Trump. Seriously what planet are you on? Remember: ObAmA dEcimTeD tHe MiliTaRy!

I for one welcome the US providing at least some leadership once again in this world. It would be nice also if Britain also once again could show some leadership also. But neither, or even together, will be able to claim the world domination in the forseeable future, that they had for much of the 20th Century., especially under a system that has promoted such mediocre, in fact inept, leadership of these last four years.

I for one welcome the US providing at least some leadership once again in this world. It would be nice also if Britain also once again could show some leadership also. But neither, or even together, will be able to claim the world domination in the forseeable future, that they had for much of the 20th Century., especially under a system that has promoted such mediocre, in fact inept, leadership of these last four years.

Whoops sorry double post.
Mods can you please fix fo me .
Thanks

DL717 wrote:

China must be ecstatic.

Spread a disease, buy up the debt, steal more jobs. Lovely.

Why do you say “steal more jobs”? China did not steal any jobs. All the jobs were transferred there by the profit hungry corporatists, who do not care about their own country long term wellbeing. Would you refuse if someone would offer you their business, even though someone else would lose their job? Now, which party is considered to be business friendly?

DL717 wrote:

China must be ecstatic.

Spread a disease, buy up the debt, steal more jobs. Lovely.

Just curious - do you also consider Walmart to be job thieves, or is it only China?

MaverickM11 wrote:

Sokes wrote:

...
So the military-industrial complex is back.
Let's see if some of those who believe Trump or his supporters lack intelligence soon wish him back.

Wut. Military spending has climbed under Trump. Seriously what planet are you on? Remember: ObAmA dEcimTeD tHe MiliTaRy!

You are right.
From 2017 to 2018 there was a 7.1% increase in military spending. So yes.

Interesting that Obama cut defence spending, but at the same time started wars.
Trump didn't start wars, but increased defence spending.

I like Clinton. He also cut defence. At the same time he did what the banking lobby wanted.

Trump wasn't aggressive, but did what the Israel lobby wanted.

Maybe politics is about what lobby groups to please at which other lobby group's cost.
So what lobby group is Biden going to please?

What do you mean with Wut/ anger?

Aaron747 wrote:

Sokes wrote:

I haven't heard of PNAC. Can you expand?

Project for the New American Century - a guiding neoconservative foreign policy strategy document that influenced many advisers and key figures in the Bush 43 administration.

Ah, the Pearl Harbour people.

I'm learning more every day. Ben Affleck won the Second World War and the US never benefits from its armed interactions abroad.

stratosphere wrote:

They make virtually everything in our critical supply chains and our stupid politicians have not learned this lesson which will only get worse under Biden. .

When Biden was VP the US government wanted to set up PPE Production in the US, the project would cost just about ten million, planning proceeded nicely, and would have yielded a multi million masks/day production capacity.

Want to venture a guess who killt the project, and is hence the single personally responsible Person for the US Mask shortage? I give you a hint, his name starts with a T and rhymes on swamp.

Care to check how many Jobs went to China under Trump? Care to check how US car exports to China fell of a cliff under Trump?

Manufacturing is in decline in China as well, as in all countries when they industrialize more, under Trump the decline of Chinese manufacturing slowed down.

When you think Trump did something effective against China, then you know reality only from his Twitter Feed. The only generally right thing he did, imposing tariffs, was done in a way that guaranteed China wouldn´t get hurt by them.

There is plenty of empirical data proving that whatever the US Government, with Biden in it, did was far more successful than the Trump admin.

best regards
Thomas

Sokes wrote:

MaverickM11 wrote:

Sokes wrote:

...
So the military-industrial complex is back.
Let's see if some of those who believe Trump or his supporters lack intelligence soon wish him back.

Wut. Military spending has climbed under Trump. Seriously what planet are you on? Remember: ObAmA dEcimTeD tHe MiliTaRy!

You are right.
From 2017 to 2018 there was a 7.1% increase in military spending. So yes.

Interesting that Obama cut defence spending, but at the same time started wars.
Trump didn't start wars, but increased defence spending.

I like Clinton. He also cut defence. At the same time he did what the banking lobby wanted.

Trump wasn't aggressive, but did what the Israel lobby wanted.

Maybe politics is about what lobby groups to please at which other lobby group's cost.
So what lobby group is Biden going to please?

What do you mean with Wut/ anger?

Trump also expanded drone attacks significantly above the levels utilized by Obama:

https://chicago.suntimes.com/news/2019/ ... -s-numbers

While at the same time, reducing the amount of transparency and accountability for results of those attacks:

https://foreignpolicy.com/2020/05/22/ob ... ngs-count/

DL717 wrote:

China must be ecstatic.

Spread a disease, buy up the debt, steal more jobs. Lovely.

Speaking about spreading diseases:
"The first observations of illness and mortality were documented in the United States (in Kansas and New York City, and months before, in December 1917, at Camp Greene, North Carolina),[6] France, Germany, and the United Kingdom. To maintain morale, World War I censors minimized these early reports. Newspapers were free to report the epidemic's effects in neutral Spain, such as the grave illness of King Alfonso XIII, and these stories created a false impression of Spain as especially hard hit. This gave rise to the name "Spanish" flu. Historical and epidemiological data are inadequate to identify with certainty the pandemic's geographic origin, with varying views as to its location."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spanish_flu

According to the German Wikipedia it most likely started in the US.

Buy up debt:
I understand that being the reserve currency profits some Americans more than others. But should you blame China?

US has lots of foreign investment. So a lot of the surplus value of labour all over the world goes in pockets of rich Americans.
Is this better than China buying foreign debt?
Why should Chinese not be allowed to invest abroad?

I'd rather you didn't, the world doesn't need a leader, it certainly doesn't need you to self appoint yourself to that position.

Aaron747 wrote:

Trump also expanded drone attacks significantly above the levels utilized by Obama:

https://chicago.suntimes.com/news/2019/ ... -s-numbers

While at the same time, reducing the amount of transparency and accountability for results of those attacks:

https://foreignpolicy.com/2020/05/22/ob ... ngs-count/

"more/increasing underhanded attacks in various interest regions."
( financing terror, drone attacks, sanctions bypassing any established legal processes.)

That is an ongoing process going back to Clinton or even further.
( like bombing competing pharmaceutical production sites under pretext of "they build bombs, gas, .." )

Apparently unlinked to partisan ideology or the sitting POTUS.

Disabling the US as a global actor would remove about 80% of all currently running conflicts.

Sokes wrote:

So who is supposed to lead the world if not the US?

Why does the world need a leader, and if we do it should be agreed upon by the entire world not forced onto the world by US self appointment.The US acts in it's own self interest.

Kiwirob wrote:

Sokes wrote:

So who is supposed to lead the world if not the US?

Why does the world need a leader, and if we do it should be agreed upon by the entire world not forced onto the world by US self appointment.The US acts in it's own self interest.

Roman Empire, British Empire:
The world is more in order with a hegemon.

When was the world better than today?

AirWorthy99 wrote:

skyservice_330 wrote:

The Soviets helped liberate Europe from the Nazi's. Any notion that the USA single handidly 'bailed out Europe' from Nazi oppression is incorrect. And that is what my comment was in relation to. If you want to start a thread about the period 1945 to present re: Soviet-Europe relations then have at it. Their actions post-1945 do not diminish or negate the military blood and sweat the Soviets spilled to liberate Europe.

As for 'putting their neck out there' - because it is in the US interest to do so. As noted, the world or Europe going to sh*t will not benefit the USA. Isolationist views may give you some good feelz to 'show those Europeans - this will teach them!' but they are shortsighted and self defeating.

Again liberating, if Hitler hadnt stabbed Stalin in the back and not invaded Soviet territory, very hard to had seen the Soviets help defeat Hitler. Many of those Soviets dead by Nazis died in Soviet territories the Nazis invaded.

Give the Soviets all the credit you like, it wasnt on the interest of “liberating” Europe.

The war would have ended in a stalemate. The RN kept the Kriegsmarine bottled up in the Norwegian fiords and Baltic Sea. The RAF defeated the Luftwaffe which effectively ended their chances of invading Britain. The RAF defeated the Luftwaffe in the Battle of Malta, which cut the Axis supply lines to North Africa. The 8th Army defeated the Germans and Italians in North Africa.

Sokes wrote:

Kiwirob wrote:

Sokes wrote:

So who is supposed to lead the world if not the US?

Why does the world need a leader, and if we do it should be agreed upon by the entire world not forced onto the world by US self appointment.The US acts in it's own self interest.

Roman Empire, British Empire:
The world is more in order with a hegemon.

When was the world better than today?

And back then the concept of hegemon was much stronger than now. Maybe you have cause and effect all mixed up.

JJJ wrote:

And back then the concept of hegemon was much stronger than now. Maybe you have cause and effect all mixed up.

You mean the world isn't good today because of the US hegemon, rather because the world is good the US became hegemon?

Sokes wrote:

JJJ wrote:

And back then the concept of hegemon was much stronger than now. Maybe you have cause and effect all mixed up.

You mean the world isn't good today because of the US hegemon, rather because the world is good the US became hegemon?

I mean that the world is better today because the role of hegemon means less and less with the passing years.

JJJ wrote:

I mean that the world is better today because the role of hegemon means less and less with the passing years.

Since I am a believer in capitalism I have to be careful what to say now.
The question is if you are 30% or 70% right.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_End_o ... e_Last_Man

Every country has it racists, nationalists, fascists, haters, and just plain mean people. In the olden golden age of the US they were divided amongst the two parties - now almost all of them are in one party and supporters of Trump. Maybe 10% maybe 25% of the voters. Currently Republicans cannot win without them. Collectively those 10-25% have kicked all moderates out of their party or intimidated them into silence.

Read the response of Republicans to their Republican man who is in charge of voting in Georgia. The furor has announced he is RINO, Republican in Name Only because he would not suppress enough ballots to give a win to Trump. This is neo-fascism.

Kiwirob wrote:

AirWorthy99 wrote:

skyservice_330 wrote:

The Soviets helped liberate Europe from the Nazi's. Any notion that the USA single handidly 'bailed out Europe' from Nazi oppression is incorrect. And that is what my comment was in relation to. If you want to start a thread about the period 1945 to present re: Soviet-Europe relations then have at it. Their actions post-1945 do not diminish or negate the military blood and sweat the Soviets spilled to liberate Europe.

As for 'putting their neck out there' - because it is in the US interest to do so. As noted, the world or Europe going to sh*t will not benefit the USA. Isolationist views may give you some good feelz to 'show those Europeans - this will teach them!' but they are shortsighted and self defeating.

Again liberating, if Hitler hadnt stabbed Stalin in the back and not invaded Soviet territory, very hard to had seen the Soviets help defeat Hitler. Many of those Soviets dead by Nazis died in Soviet territories the Nazis invaded.

Give the Soviets all the credit you like, it wasnt on the interest of “liberating” Europe.

The war would have ended in a stalemate. The RN kept the Kriegsmarine bottled up in the Norwegian fiords and Baltic Sea. The RAF defeated the Luftwaffe which effectively ended their chances of invading Britain. The RAF defeated the Luftwaffe in the Battle of Malta, which cut the Axis supply lines to North Africa. The 8th Army defeated the Germans and Italians in North Africa.

As I remember Finland did their job keeping invaders out as well.

Most leaders in the 3rd world just want their Golden Parachute. They don't care if they sell out their country to China or to the US. Either way, the poor in those countries will continue to suffer under the corruption there. Only solution is a World minimum guaranteed income, administered by the above reproach UN.

Virtual737 wrote:

I'm learning more every day. Ben Affleck won the Second World War and the US never benefits from its armed interactions abroad.

All "UN" wars suck.

DIRECTFLT wrote:

Most leaders in the 3rd world just want their Golden Parachute. They don't care if they sell out their country to China or to the US. Either way, the poor in those countries will continue to suffer under the corruption there. Only solution is a World minimum guaranteed income, administered by the above reproach UN.

Those countries you mentioned, when combined, have enough votes to veto or adopt any resolutions they want in the UN?

DIRECTFLT wrote:

Virtual737 wrote:

I'm learning more every day. Ben Affleck won the Second World War and the US never benefits from its armed interactions abroad.

All "UN" wars suck.

begin with Korea.
But they don't suck for weapons manufacturers. IKE saw that.
US voters are still oblivious 5 decades later.

AirWorthy99 wrote:

skyservice_330 wrote:

You stated / implied / suggested that the US 'bailed out' Europe - and I simply noted that the US played an important role in defeating Nazi Germany - but that the Soviets in the East did not play an insignificant role either.

The comment was not in relation to what happened after the war re: the Soviets and the East - do try to keep up

OK bailing out, nice point, what role the Soviets had with the “Marshall plan”?

And did they deliver with any significant means to the betterment of Europe?

We know the answer. The US has been putting their neck out there for Europe always till this day.

Some history lessons:
During the Teheran and Yalta Conferences, Roosevelt gave Eastern Europe to Stalin in order to get Soviet support In the war against Japan. The western allies even halted at the Elbe because of the agreements to divide Germany post-war. And in 1947 Truman introduced his doctrine of containment and the Marshall Plan followed shortly afterwards. And although the Marshall Plan has been benificial for the European countries which received the help, it didn't initiate the recovery of Europe post WW2.

The only reason the US is in Europe is because of the US interests. Nice example is the enlargement of the NATO.
"Shortly after the fall of the Berlin wall in 1989, the George H.W. Bush administration (1989-1993) began to debate internally whether enlargement of NATO was feasible and desirable. By mid-1992, a consensus emerged within the administration that NATO enlargement was a wise realpolitik measure to strengthen American hegemony. In the absence of NATO enlargement, Bush administration officials worried that the European Union might fill the security vacuum in Eastern Europe, and thus challenge American post-Cold War influence There was an active debate within the Clinton administration (1993-2001) between a rapid offer of full membership to several select countries verses a slower, more limited membership to a wide range of states over a longer time span. Victory by the Republican Party, who advocated for aggressive expansion, in the 1994 U.S. congressional election helped sway U.S. policy in favor of wider full-membership enlargement."

And it was the USA who dragged NATO members into a conflict in the Middle East because of Saddams "Weapons of Mass Destruction"; a conflict which also gave us IS, terrorist attacks in Europe and millions of refugees.

Yep, really putting their neck out there for Europe .....

marcelh wrote:

AirWorthy99 wrote:

skyservice_330 wrote:

You stated / implied / suggested that the US 'bailed out' Europe - and I simply noted that the US played an important role in defeating Nazi Germany - but that the Soviets in the East did not play an insignificant role either.

The comment was not in relation to what happened after the war re: the Soviets and the East - do try to keep up

OK bailing out, nice point, what role the Soviets had with the “Marshall plan”?

And did they deliver with any significant means to the betterment of Europe?

We know the answer. The US has been putting their neck out there for Europe always till this day.

Some history lessons:
During the Teheran and Yalta Conferences, Roosevelt gave Eastern Europe to Stalin in order to get Soviet support In the war against Japan. The western allies even halted at the Elbe because of the agreements to divide Germany post-war. And in 1947 Truman introduced his doctrine of containment and the Marshall Plan followed shortly afterwards. And although the Marshall Plan has been benificial for the European countries which received the help, it didn't initiate the recovery of Europe post WW2.

The only reason the US is in Europe is because of the US interests. Nice example is the enlargement of the NATO.
"Shortly after the fall of the Berlin wall in 1989, the George H.W. Bush administration (1989-1993) began to debate internally whether enlargement of NATO was feasible and desirable. By mid-1992, a consensus emerged within the administration that NATO enlargement was a wise realpolitik measure to strengthen American hegemony. In the absence of NATO enlargement, Bush administration officials worried that the European Union might fill the security vacuum in Eastern Europe, and thus challenge American post-Cold War influence There was an active debate within the Clinton administration (1993-2001) between a rapid offer of full membership to several select countries verses a slower, more limited membership to a wide range of states over a longer time span. Victory by the Republican Party, who advocated for aggressive expansion, in the 1994 U.S. congressional election helped sway U.S. policy in favor of wider full-membership enlargement."

And it was the USA who dragged NATO members into a conflict in the Middle East because of Saddams "Weapons of Mass Destruction"; a conflict which also gave us IS, terrorist attacks in Europe and millions of refugees.

Yep, really putting their neck out there for Europe .....

You are going past the point here. The US and Britain certainly needed the Soviet's help to win WWII. However to simply say that the Soviets had in their hearts its main interest in 'liberating' Europe is by far a very naive belief. Would the US and Britain had taken down Hitler? difficult to believe without more massive loss of life and extending the campaign longer, but after the war, it became quite clear that the Soviets did not intend to push back into their original Soviet borders, and we all saw what happened. Yes the US had a very special interest in containing Soviet influence not only in Europe but in the entire world.

The Berlin wall came down, the Soviet's are no longer a threat. Not today, Russia's economy is smaller of that of Italy. No point with the US still defending the Europeans from Russian aggression, that's my point, they should deal with Putin themselves, starting with stopping buying energy from them. That's highly unlikely since Europe is obsessed with their own Green deal.

The main issue of today is China. That's the biggest threat, not Putin. The US should focus solely on China, but it seems that here in the US and Europe no one is willing to accept that they are an issue looking forward because of their money.

AirWorthy99 wrote:

The main issue of today is China. That's the biggest threat, not Putin. The US should focus solely on China, but it seems that here in the US and Europe no one is willing to accept that they are an issue looking forward because of their money.

Do you have any evidence for this incredible claim?

China is an economic threat and a strategic competitor, for sure. But Russia punches well above their economic weight in global influence and they like it that way (at least Putin does). Putin does not like US/western market access and strategic interest in what he sees as Russia's traditional sphere of influence. You simply cannot claim that 'only Europe should deal with Russia' because that doesn't jive at all with reality. These are the countries that are the primary customers of Russian military hardware and expertise:

- Iran
- Iraq
- India
- Vietnam
- China
- Bangladesh
- Algeria

Who are some of their other major military partners?

- Greece
- Egypt
- U.A.E.
- Saudi Arabia
- Pakistan
- North Korea
- Jordan

https://www.aa.com.tr/en/politics/us-al ... 20products.

Do you see any potential issues with US customers/protectorates there?

Aaron747 wrote:

AirWorthy99 wrote:

The main issue of today is China. That's the biggest threat, not Putin. The US should focus solely on China, but it seems that here in the US and Europe no one is willing to accept that they are an issue looking forward because of their money.

Do you have any evidence for this incredible claim?

China is an economic threat and a strategic competitor, for sure. But Russia punches well above their economic weight in global influence and they like it that way (at least Putin does). Putin does not like US/western market access and strategic interest in what he sees as Russia's traditional sphere of influence. You simply cannot claim that 'only Europe should deal with Russia' because that doesn't jive at all with reality. These are the countries that are the primary customers of Russian military hardware and expertise:

- Iran
- Iraq
- India
- Vietnam
- China
- Bangladesh
- Algeria

Who are some of their other major military partners?

- Greece
- Egypt
- U.A.E.
- Saudi Arabia
- Pakistan
- North Korea
- Jordan

https://www.aa.com.tr/en/politics/us-al ... 20products.

Do you see any potential issues with US customers/protectorates there?

Evidence is, checkout the energy purchases Europe does to Russia, compared to any of the military purchases those nations have with Russia. It would dwarf that for certain.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russia_in ... rgy_sector

If Europe is so concerned and needs our help deterring Russia, I would start by getting rid of their dependence of Russian energy. That's for starters.

Russian influence and military is getting very well financed by Europe, for the most part.

AirWorthy99 wrote:

Evidence is, checkout the energy purchases Europe does to Russia, compared to any of the military purchases those nations have with Russia. It would dwarf that for certain.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russia_in ... rgy_sector

If Europe is so concerned and needs our help deterring Russia, I would start by getting rid of their dependence of Russian energy. That's for starters.

Russian influence and military is getting very well financed by Europe, for the most part.

Energy imports:
We both have a strong interest to maintain good relations. If US and Russia ever end up in a big quarrel, at least Germany will be a partner trusted by both who can help to moderate.

There is no more Russian Weltanschauung that threatens the world. Why to be so hostile?

I admire China.
Since people live around 80 years, countries that develop in 30 years somehow pose a risk. People grown in poverty want to show that they are also important.
But I believe China is different. Nobody wants to sacrifice the only son.
Plus China is a blessing for poor countries. Never was the world better. It is because of US hegemony. But it is also because of Chinese savings being available in the poorest countries.