DogOnPorch Posted March 11, 2017 Report Share Posted March 11, 2017 5 hours ago, herples said: Russia is a country the USSR was a group of countries. The attempt to surround Russia will not create any desirable response. However viewing NATO as obsolete does not mean it has to be dismantled it needs to change it's goals to meet the challenges of today. NATO is too important for the US to get rid of or to sanctions member states over military spending. Those are Russian bombers...not American. That's one airbase...and a lot of Tu-95s. The average Russian nuclear cruise missile is in the 20-100 kt yield range. Those Bears carry around six each in the nuclear role. Maybe more if just frying Europe. Hiroshima was flattened with (just!) 15kt. Not toys...one can change the world. Really change the world. No...Putin is not out to get us. But one buys insurance before the fire...not after. Hey...guess what? The Russians also have working SLBMs and a variety of MIRV capable ICBMs...most on mobile launches. This besides the fleet of Tu-95s, Tu-22s and Tu-160s. How about that! Someone is taking this seriously...duck n' cover. 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bush_cheney2004 Posted March 11, 2017 Report Share Posted March 11, 2017 39 minutes ago, DogOnPorch said: Not toys...one can change the world. Really change the world. No...Putin is not out to get us. But one buys insurance before the fire...not after. Sometimes...the old ways are best. The terrorists are such amateurs ! 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
herples Posted March 11, 2017 Report Share Posted March 11, 2017 (edited) 4 hours ago, DogOnPorch said: Those are Russian bombers...not American. That's one airbase...and a lot of Tu-95s. The average Russian nuclear cruise missile is in the 20-100 kt yield range. Those Bears carry around six each in the nuclear role. Maybe more if just frying Europe. Hiroshima was flattened with (just!) 15kt. Not toys...one can change the world. Really change the world. No...Putin is not out to get us. But one buys insurance before the fire...not after. Hey...guess what? The Russians also have working SLBMs and a variety of MIRV capable ICBMs...most on mobile launches. This besides the fleet of Tu-95s, Tu-22s and Tu-160s. How about that! Someone is taking this seriously...duck n' cover. I never claimed they were American bombers but okay. Edited March 11, 2017 by herples Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wilber Posted March 11, 2017 Report Share Posted March 11, 2017 On 2017-03-10 at 9:13 AM, eyeball said: Right, just wait until the bill for reparations comes due then you'll hear some real snivelling. We agreed to go on a multi-decade long rampage around the world with our allies? Who's brainwave was that? We did not. Afghanistan was our first real combat operation since the Korean War. 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
eyeball Posted March 11, 2017 Report Share Posted March 11, 2017 I notice we blew it in Korea too. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wilber Posted March 11, 2017 Report Share Posted March 11, 2017 2 hours ago, eyeball said: I notice we blew it in Korea too. I think every citizen on South Korea would completely dissagree with you. 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Army Guy Posted March 12, 2017 Author Report Share Posted March 12, 2017 17 hours ago, herples said: Russia is a country the USSR was a group of countries. The attempt to surround Russia will not create any desirable response. However viewing NATO as obsolete does not mean it has to be dismantled it needs to change it's goals to meet the challenges of today. NATO is too important for the US to get rid of or to sanctions member states over military spending. You make it sound like the US is stuck, that they have no choice but to bear all the burden, of costs and manpower ....while the rest of the lurkers go on parting like it was 1999. What exactly does the US have to do to make you believe that the free ride is over.....and yet maybe they are doing it because their are tired of paying the bill and the US does need NATO, NATO needs the us, you should keep that in mind.....they are standing at our table with their hands out....time to man up and give up some of the party money... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bush_cheney2004 Posted March 12, 2017 Report Share Posted March 12, 2017 22 minutes ago, Army Guy said: You make it sound like the US is stuck, that they have no choice but to bear all the burden, of costs and manpower ....while the rest of the lurkers go on parting like it was 1999. What exactly does the US have to do to make you believe that the free ride is over.....and yet maybe they are doing it because their are tired of paying the bill and the US does need NATO, NATO needs the us, you should keep that in mind.....they are standing at our table with their hands out....time to man up and give up some of the party money... Agreed....NATO needs the US far more than the US needs NATO. It is a common mistake to believe that all of U.S. military spending (or even all spending of NATO members) counts towards the resources available to defend Europe/European interests in a NATO context. NATO as an organization runs on a measly $2 billion per year, a tiny drop in the total defense spending of all NATO members. The U.S. also uses its military assets in Europe for non-NATO missions/interests. The U.S. will likely spend $700 billion per year on its DoD regardless of what other deadbeat NATO members do. On paper, the U.S. pays for 22 percent of direct NATO operations, with the "vast majority" of US military capabilities being outside NATO control or influence. Most U.S. commands never chop to NATO, and this is by design. Even in Afghanistan, the U.S. maintained separate resources and force structure from unified NATO command. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Army Guy Posted March 14, 2017 Author Report Share Posted March 14, 2017 (edited) Another warning fired at the Liberals excuses......there are no excuses available ......This time from the NATO Secretary General Jens Stoltenberg, while the liberals are running around trying to fudge the numbers through the way they report defense expenditures. or continuing the old excuse well we contribute troops and equipment ....NATO is not accepting that excuse....and wants countries to pony up ..... But how can the liberals expect us to continue with this exercise of sending troops and equipment when they refuse to upgrade any of it....Not exactly true, they have proven they are capable of buying what they like.....and not what DND wants or likes. http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/nato-spending-gdp-brussels-1.4022576 Edited March 14, 2017 by Army Guy Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Army Guy Posted March 23, 2017 Author Report Share Posted March 23, 2017 Why is the liberals painting themselves into a corner like this, they have just come out and said all future purchase projects are pushed to 2030.....and in the next breath they say wait until the Defense review is announce later in the year.....that will explain everything.....Sorry but you have left me dumbfounded....not hard to confuse an army guy, but how does one say we are stripping that 8.4 bil in spending out of DND budget, and might return it in 2030....does the liberals know something we do not , seems they are counting on winning the next 3 elections....and even then they don't really need to keep their word, who is going to remember.....DND is going to remember..... SO what they fail to explain is how does this sit with the interim F-18E buy , are we getting them or not, what about logistic vehs the army desperately needs, what about the ship project....are they all defered to 2030....I will be the first to admit i was hoping that the military gods had convinced the liberals that they needed to take some action on defense procurement....i mean they were on the way to quickly break the Cons purchasing record.....now it looks like we will have to wait on a new government .....which could take years.... At what point will we buy new equipment, the F-18 are good until just after 2025, the ships until roughly the same period...if we have a contract in place soon....at what point are Canadians going to stand up and make them do something.....I guess we are waiting until 2030..... I had placed a lot of hope on the new US government in pushing us to spend a little more, and regardless of all the pomp that the US said it wanted out of NATO partners .....our PM responds with a pretty blunt message....hell no we are doing nothing until 2030....can't wait to see the us reaction to that news......Maybe there is some underlying issue that we do not know about.....but one has to ask.....why the sudden 180 on defense spending.... http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/liberal-budget-military-2017-1.4035424 http://news.nationalpost.com/news/canada/canadian-politics/federal-budget-leaves-uncertainty-over-defence-spending-veterans-pensions Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Hardner Posted March 23, 2017 Report Share Posted March 23, 2017 Folks please try to stay on topic thank you. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dre Posted March 23, 2017 Report Share Posted March 23, 2017 (edited) On 3/10/2017 at 8:43 AM, Army Guy said: They are shaking the boat , they have grown tired of paying for everything, and ponying up the troops all of the time.....they have every reason to complain....Canada has been free loading for quite awhile now, it's time to live up to our agreements. Canada has not been free loading. We have given a great deal to the organization and never asked for one single thing in return. If that's freeloading, can you please freeload off of me? Edited March 23, 2017 by dre Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Army Guy Posted March 23, 2017 Author Report Share Posted March 23, 2017 (edited) 3 minutes ago, dre said: Canada has not been free loading. We have given a great deal to the organization and never asked for one single thing in return. Please do tell, give us some examples of how we have not been free loading.....how our contributions are in line with all the rest of the nations in NATO..... Edited March 23, 2017 by Army Guy Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Argus Posted March 23, 2017 Report Share Posted March 23, 2017 9 minutes ago, dre said: Canada has not been free loading. We have given a great deal to the organization and never asked for one single thing in return. If that's freeloading, can you please freeload off of me? A defensive treaty is like insurance. Do you get to tell your insurance company that they've been collecting from you for years without you making a claim, so they've got no business getting huffy just because you want to pay half the stated rate? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Argus Posted March 23, 2017 Report Share Posted March 23, 2017 1 hour ago, Army Guy said: Why is the liberals painting themselves into a corner like this, they have just come out and said all future purchase projects are pushed to 2030.....and in the next breath they say wait until the Defense review is announce later in the year.....that will explain everything.....Sorry but you have left me dumbfounded.... What's to be confused about. They've cancelled all military capital procurement so they can put the money into social welfare programs without raising the deficit even higher. You don't 'postpone' purchases for fifteen years, AG. That's just political doubletalk. They're cancelled. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dre Posted March 23, 2017 Report Share Posted March 23, 2017 12 minutes ago, Army Guy said: Please do tell, give us some examples of how we have not been free loading.....how our contributions are in line with all the rest of the nations in NATO..... They don't have to be in line. Spending targets are not mandatory. The fact is we give way more than we get back. If I give you $5 and ask nothing in return, am I "freeloading" just because you would have rather had $10? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PIK Posted March 23, 2017 Report Share Posted March 23, 2017 On 3/11/2017 at 2:54 PM, eyeball said: I notice we blew it in Korea too. Please explain? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PIK Posted March 23, 2017 Report Share Posted March 23, 2017 16 minutes ago, Army Guy said: Please do tell, give us some examples of how we have not been free loading.....how our contributions are in line with all the rest of the nations in NATO..... We did spend 16b in afghanistan, does that not count for anything. But yes we are cheap when it comes to others stuff. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Argus Posted March 23, 2017 Report Share Posted March 23, 2017 1 minute ago, PIK said: We did spend 16b in afghanistan, does that not count for anything. But yes we are cheap when it comes to others stuff. I suspect that amount is more than slightly deceptive. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Army Guy Posted March 23, 2017 Author Report Share Posted March 23, 2017 15 minutes ago, Argus said: What's to be confused about. They've cancelled all military capital procurement so they can put the money into social welfare programs without raising the deficit even higher. You don't 'postpone' purchases for fifteen years, AG. That's just political doubletalk. They're cancelled. I get that, what is confusing is going from 0 to 180 in seconds on procurement , i mean the F-18 interm aircraft , the ship building project, and the entire thing about the military future , and talking to citizens, and the Trump talk about NATO.....put all that together and then out of the blue come out and say all of this.....it does not make sense.... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dre Posted March 23, 2017 Report Share Posted March 23, 2017 15 minutes ago, Argus said: A defensive treaty is like insurance. Do you get to tell your insurance company that they've been collecting from you for years without you making a claim, so they've got no business getting huffy just because you want to pay half the stated rate? There is no "stated rate". There's non binding "guidelines". Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Army Guy Posted March 23, 2017 Author Report Share Posted March 23, 2017 14 minutes ago, dre said: They don't have to be in line. Spending targets are not mandatory. The fact is we give way more than we get back. If I give you $5 and ask nothing in return, am I "freeloading" just because you would have rather had $10? WOW that is a lot of examples.....spending targets are not mandatory they are highly recommended.....and yet most nations will be spending more on their militaries....except Canada who will for some reason be deferring all expenditures until 2030.... Are you saying that NATO deceived Canada into signing on to an agreement it was not ready for, That Canada can not live up to....Or that Canada did not know what it was getting into. And yet here we sit , at the grown up table....sitting here has a cost, that all NATO members must bring something to the table....well more than a half sqn of F-18's and a few hundred troops in a couple of Nations...why is that ....well sir, a lot of these countries are dependant on the protection from NATO.... We as a nation knew very well we would not be dependent on NATO , but rather the US....so what is it that we really wanted out of NATO....a seat.....thats what.. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Argus Posted March 23, 2017 Report Share Posted March 23, 2017 11 minutes ago, dre said: There is no "stated rate". There's non binding "guidelines". Which Canada has committed to reaching. The Trudeau government SAYS that is what it's aiming at and that it will reach that level. When? In 2030? That's a total cop-out. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Army Guy Posted March 23, 2017 Author Report Share Posted March 23, 2017 (edited) 32 minutes ago, PIK said: We did spend 16b in afghanistan, does that not count for anything. But yes we are cheap when it comes to others stuff. Well to be fair, a lot of that was to purchase equipment we did not have.....and it was over a 10 year span....plus alot of other projects such as the dam project consumed Bils, along with other PRT missions to build pave highways, to reduce IED's, etc etc etc If you mean we spent 16 Bil of tax payers dollars you are right, you would also be right if you said that 16 BIL was taken out of DND budget as is every mission our military goes on, including the one to pick up syrian refugees last year.... It is why DND is scrambling right now to pay for all the new Liberal missions, it has ordered all non essential military activities and expenditures shut down, this includes training except for ongoing mission training... would that spending bring us to 2 % GDP, not even close.....maybe 1.2 % if we were lucky.... Edited March 23, 2017 by Army Guy Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
eyeball Posted March 23, 2017 Report Share Posted March 23, 2017 48 minutes ago, PIK said: Please explain? A state of war still exists. Where's the peace treaty? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.