Ukraine conflict
09-26-2023, 04:30 PM
#1441
Perennial Reserve
Joined APC: Jan 2018
Posts: 12,114
we aren’t sending troops, we are only sending about 2% of our annual DOD budget. Do not for one second argue as if anyone is asking to send US troops. That is a red herring of epic proportion.
As far as the Ukrainians, they aren’t asking anything…..Russia is invading their territory. How hard is this to understand? this can end any time Russia wants it to.
It’s kind of like you just want the Ukrainians to roll over and die, kind of disgusting
but regardless, with the EU help that did not falter in the winter of 22 like you said it would, Ukraine has broken the back of Russia. They will not be able to invade anyone for decades to come.
As far as the Ukrainians, they aren’t asking anything…..Russia is invading their territory. How hard is this to understand? this can end any time Russia wants it to.
It’s kind of like you just want the Ukrainians to roll over and die, kind of disgusting
but regardless, with the EU help that did not falter in the winter of 22 like you said it would, Ukraine has broken the back of Russia. They will not be able to invade anyone for decades to come.
Neither has happened yet: https://www.dw.com/en/what-happened-...und/a-64846571
it is clear that a large percentage of what European NATO countries did donate was unusable junk, even after a half year or more was ostensibly spent “refurbishing” it.
https://news.yahoo.com/media-ukraine...151638981.html
https://www.businessinsider.com/ukra...1-tanks-2023-9
https://www.kyivpost.com/analysis/21859
even now, the F-16s that the Netherlands and Norway are talking about sending are shopworn Block 5 through Block 15 models. 15 years ago when theNetherlands were getting rid of these antiques by selling them to Chile and Jordan they valued them at about $4 million a unit. It is doubtful that another 15 years of use (or worse yet, sitting as hangar queens) has somehow improved their worth.
Let’s be honest here, Hub, the non U.S. part of NATO is simply feckless.
Last edited by Excargodog; 09-26-2023 at 04:53 PM.
09-26-2023, 05:33 PM
#1443
Gets Weekends Off
Thread Starter
Joined APC: Jun 2022
Posts: 1,437
I completely and utterly disagree with your first. A stable Europe is inherently in our best interest.
09-26-2023, 06:43 PM
#1444
Perennial Reserve
Joined APC: Jan 2018
Posts: 12,114
Responsibility? Not so much.
https://newrepublic.com/article/166081/nato-bases-eastern-europe-putin
Last edited by Excargodog; 09-26-2023 at 07:11 PM.
09-26-2023, 07:24 PM
#1446
Gets Everyday Off
Joined APC: Aug 2016
Position: Fully Retired
Posts: 7,000
You are entitled to your opinion.
Here is what the Gallup Poll found of him in 2002:
Secretary of State Colin Powell receives the highest ratings of the four administration members included in the survey, with 88% of Americans expressing a favorable view and just 6% an unfavorable view. This 88% favorable rating is in fact one of the highest such ratings in Gallup Poll history. Powell's high popularity is nothing new. When he was initially thrust into the national spotlight over a decade ago, as Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, he received highly favorable ratings from the American public even then. After his retirement, many Republican Party leaders thought he would be a good presidential candidate to oppose Bill Clinton's re-election, but Powell declined to run. Still, his popularity remained high after his selection by Bush to head up the State Department, and today he remains the most favorably evaluated person on the political landscape -- of either party.
Powell has been portrayed in the news media as less committed than Bush, Cheney and Rumsfeld to a war with Iraq. But the secretary of state has been the U.S. official primarily responsible for making the case for war to the United Nations, and has been working on the wording of a resolution to make the action acceptable to the U.N. Security Council
Here is what the Gallup Poll found of him in 2002:
Secretary of State Colin Powell receives the highest ratings of the four administration members included in the survey, with 88% of Americans expressing a favorable view and just 6% an unfavorable view. This 88% favorable rating is in fact one of the highest such ratings in Gallup Poll history. Powell's high popularity is nothing new. When he was initially thrust into the national spotlight over a decade ago, as Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, he received highly favorable ratings from the American public even then. After his retirement, many Republican Party leaders thought he would be a good presidential candidate to oppose Bill Clinton's re-election, but Powell declined to run. Still, his popularity remained high after his selection by Bush to head up the State Department, and today he remains the most favorably evaluated person on the political landscape -- of either party.
Powell has been portrayed in the news media as less committed than Bush, Cheney and Rumsfeld to a war with Iraq. But the secretary of state has been the U.S. official primarily responsible for making the case for war to the United Nations, and has been working on the wording of a resolution to make the action acceptable to the U.N. Security Council
09-26-2023, 08:13 PM
#1447
Perennial Reserve
Joined APC: Jan 2018
Posts: 12,114
You are entitled to your opinion.
Here is what the Gallup Poll found of him in 2002:
Secretary of State Colin Powell receives the highest ratings of the four administration members included in the survey, with 88% of Americans expressing a favorable view and just 6% an unfavorable view. This 88% favorable rating is in fact one of the highest such ratings in Gallup Poll history. Powell's high popularity is nothing new. When he was initially thrust into the national spotlight over a decade ago, as Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, he received highly favorable ratings from the American public even then. After his retirement, many Republican Party leaders thought he would be a good presidential candidate to oppose Bill Clinton's re-election, but Powell declined to run. Still, his popularity remained high after his selection by Bush to head up the State Department, and today he remains the most favorably evaluated person on the political landscape -- of either party.
Powell has been portrayed in the news media as less committed than Bush, Cheney and Rumsfeld to a war with Iraq. But the secretary of state has been the U.S. official primarily responsible for making the case for war to the United Nations, and has been working on the wording of a resolution to make the action acceptable to the U.N. Security Council
Here is what the Gallup Poll found of him in 2002:
Secretary of State Colin Powell receives the highest ratings of the four administration members included in the survey, with 88% of Americans expressing a favorable view and just 6% an unfavorable view. This 88% favorable rating is in fact one of the highest such ratings in Gallup Poll history. Powell's high popularity is nothing new. When he was initially thrust into the national spotlight over a decade ago, as Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, he received highly favorable ratings from the American public even then. After his retirement, many Republican Party leaders thought he would be a good presidential candidate to oppose Bill Clinton's re-election, but Powell declined to run. Still, his popularity remained high after his selection by Bush to head up the State Department, and today he remains the most favorably evaluated person on the political landscape -- of either party.
Powell has been portrayed in the news media as less committed than Bush, Cheney and Rumsfeld to a war with Iraq. But the secretary of state has been the U.S. official primarily responsible for making the case for war to the United Nations, and has been working on the wording of a resolution to make the action acceptable to the U.N. Security Council
But as I said, each is entitled to their opinion.
09-26-2023, 09:18 PM
#1448
Prime Minister/Moderator
Joined APC: Jan 2006
Position: Engines Turn Or People Swim
Posts: 40,041
Interest? Sure.
Responsibility? Not so much.
https://newrepublic.com/article/166081/nato-bases-eastern-europe-putin
Responsibility? Not so much.
https://newrepublic.com/article/166081/nato-bases-eastern-europe-putin
Yes. Not our responsibility. Poland however would be, since we signed a treaty with them.
Certainly in our best interest, and well worth the surplus hardware and relative chump change we've committed so far.
09-26-2023, 10:06 PM
#1450
Perennial Reserve
Joined APC: Jan 2018
Posts: 12,114
You ever actually READ article five? It is weasel-worded enough to permit any response, or none at all.
Article 5
“The Parties agree that an armed attack against one or more of them in Europe or North America shall be considered an attack against them all and consequently they agree that, if such an armed attack occurs, each of them, in exercise of the right of individual or collective self-defence recognized by Article 51 of the Charter of the United Nations, will assist the Party or Parties so attacked by taking forthwith, individually and in concert with the other Parties, such action as it deems necessary, including the use of armed force, to restore and maintain the security of the North Atlantic area.
Any such armed attack and all measures taken as a result thereof shall immediately be reported to the Security Council. Such measures shall be terminated when the Security Council has taken the measures necessary to restore and maintain international peace and security.”
“The Parties agree that an armed attack against one or more of them in Europe or North America shall be considered an attack against them all and consequently they agree that, if such an armed attack occurs, each of them, in exercise of the right of individual or collective self-defence recognized by Article 51 of the Charter of the United Nations, will assist the Party or Parties so attacked by taking forthwith, individually and in concert with the other Parties, such action as it deems necessary, including the use of armed force, to restore and maintain the security of the North Atlantic area.
Any such armed attack and all measures taken as a result thereof shall immediately be reported to the Security Council. Such measures shall be terminated when the Security Council has taken the measures necessary to restore and maintain international peace and security.”
During Desert Storm and the war in Iraq, several NATO members did little more than provide overflight rights for US warplanes. Same for Afghanistan, despite Article 5 being directly invoked by the US.
It was always a coalition if the willing, not an effort mandated by treaty, Article 5 or not.
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
