It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Thank you.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
originally posted by: BlueAjah
I think a more important question is - which of those countries would come to the defense of the US if we were attacked?
How many of them actually have the means to defend the US against a large attack, perhaps by China or Russia?
How many of these countries put their investments into their own country, without worrying about building up their national defense, because they count on the US and other larger countries to protect them?
originally posted by: ms898
a reply to: BlueAjah
Let's take Poland as an example. They are next to Russia ( who is a strategic threat to USA). By being in an alliance USA get to place defence structures and bases inside Poland's borders. If they weren't allies there is a good chance Russia would try to sieze control which they have tried in the past. Poland's military would not be a great help to USA but their regional cooperation is priceless to USAs strategic defensive goals.
originally posted by: UKTruth
originally posted by: ms898
a reply to: BlueAjah
Let's take Poland as an example. They are next to Russia ( who is a strategic threat to USA). By being in an alliance USA get to place defence structures and bases inside Poland's borders. If they weren't allies there is a good chance Russia would try to sieze control which they have tried in the past. Poland's military would not be a great help to USA but their regional cooperation is priceless to USAs strategic defensive goals.
Understood, buy I am not sure what legitimate strategic defensive goals the US have in Poland.
originally posted by: woogleuk
My problem with it is the US accepting all credit.
You look after your friends, but you don't later say "if it wasn't for us you would all be speaking [insert random foreign language] right now.
WWII was won by the UK and Russia, the US only intervened AFTER they knew the allies would win, but yet somehow the US won the war single handed.
It really annoys me.
Winston Churchill was standing in front of the washbasin in his bedroom and shaving with his old-fashioned Valet razor when his son Randolph burst in. Churchill had been prime minister for a week, taking over in a crisis as German troops were on the march, scything through Belgium and France and heading for the Channel ports. Randolph sat and waited.
Later, he described what happened next. 'After two or three minutes of hacking away at his face, he half-turned and said: "I think I see my way through." He resumed his shaving. 'I was astounded, and said: "Do you mean that we can avoid defeat?" (which seemed credible) "or beat the bastards?" (which seemed incredible). He flung his razor into the basin, swung around and said with great intensity: "Of course we can beat them. I shall drag the United States in."'
Here was a characteristic Churchillian flash of revelation, and all the more brilliant because it came in 1940, when the fighting had barely begun and the prospect of the U.S. joining in was remote.
originally posted by: UKTruth
originally posted by: BlueAjah
I think a more important question is - which of those countries would come to the defense of the US if we were attacked?
How many of them actually have the means to defend the US against a large attack, perhaps by China or Russia?
How many of these countries put their investments into their own country, without worrying about building up their national defense, because they count on the US and other larger countries to protect them?
Well, Blue, Article 5 would suggest that all the countries would be obliged to help defend America, though not sure how useful it would be.
originally posted by: Spacespider
originally posted by: IAMNOTYOU
originally posted by: Spacespider
a reply to: Orionx2
We are a small country and we have never had as much violence, rape, crime after we have opened our gates to these immigrants from the middle east, only ten years ago, gun shooting, rape and killings was very far between.. but now adays its almost everyday life and its being done by these brainwashed freaks.. everyone that do not follow their god Allah is a infidel and they do as they please.. there have been alot of small girls raped and people attacked.. and we had terror attack in copenhagen and someone tried to kill the guy that drew the Muhammad cartoon with a axe... And just today two people have been shoot by muslims and a bar was attacked by a gang of muslims with bats.. and this weekend a 16 old girl was raped at a music festival.
Oh really?? Cause iam from denmark aswell, and i cant recognize the picture your painting... Most of the problems your talking about, comes from gangs, and have nothing to do with islam.
Remember the big bikerwar in the 90´s ? Cause that was before the immigrants, and there was a lot more shoting and killing than now..
Yes, we have problems, but you cant blame muslims, is it their fault that we cant handle the criminals in our country?
Sorry for the off topic rant
Yes, USA should keep their end of the deal, and protect NATO members, or leave
Big biker war.. hah
Either you are a Muslim or you do not watch the news..
originally posted by: ms898
originally posted by: UKTruth
originally posted by: ms898
a reply to: BlueAjah
Let's take Poland as an example. They are next to Russia ( who is a strategic threat to USA). By being in an alliance USA get to place defence structures and bases inside Poland's borders. If they weren't allies there is a good chance Russia would try to sieze control which they have tried in the past. Poland's military would not be a great help to USA but their regional cooperation is priceless to USAs strategic defensive goals.
Understood, buy I am not sure what legitimate strategic defensive goals the US have in Poland.
Well if Russia launch a nuke USA could have anti missles placed in Poland to intercept. Russian defectors have a close place to go. Russia's territory cannot expand.
It's easy to say look at morals of USA placing military assests next to Russia but life or death does not worried about such things.
originally posted by: UKTruth
originally posted by: ms898
originally posted by: UKTruth
originally posted by: ms898
a reply to: BlueAjah
Let's take Poland as an example. They are next to Russia ( who is a strategic threat to USA). By being in an alliance USA get to place defence structures and bases inside Poland's borders. If they weren't allies there is a good chance Russia would try to sieze control which they have tried in the past. Poland's military would not be a great help to USA but their regional cooperation is priceless to USAs strategic defensive goals.
Understood, buy I am not sure what legitimate strategic defensive goals the US have in Poland.
Well if Russia launch a nuke USA could have anti missles placed in Poland to intercept. Russian defectors have a close place to go. Russia's territory cannot expand.
It's easy to say look at morals of USA placing military assests next to Russia but life or death does not worried about such things.
Good points.
I wonder though whether anti-missile defences close to Russia is really productive or the most effective way to show a deterrent. I always like Reagan's Star Wars dreams
originally posted by: MrSpad
originally posted by: UKTruth
originally posted by: BlueAjah
I think a more important question is - which of those countries would come to the defense of the US if we were attacked?
How many of them actually have the means to defend the US against a large attack, perhaps by China or Russia?
How many of these countries put their investments into their own country, without worrying about building up their national defense, because they count on the US and other larger countries to protect them?
Well, Blue, Article 5 would suggest that all the countries would be obliged to help defend America, though not sure how useful it would be.
The same with the RIo Pact, most of Central and South America would be brought in. What the would provide/along with NATO would be global reach, control of sea lanes and special operation forces.
originally posted by: ms898
originally posted by: UKTruth
originally posted by: ms898
originally posted by: UKTruth
originally posted by: ms898
a reply to: BlueAjah
Let's take Poland as an example. They are next to Russia ( who is a strategic threat to USA). By being in an alliance USA get to place defence structures and bases inside Poland's borders. If they weren't allies there is a good chance Russia would try to sieze control which they have tried in the past. Poland's military would not be a great help to USA but their regional cooperation is priceless to USAs strategic defensive goals.
Understood, buy I am not sure what legitimate strategic defensive goals the US have in Poland.
Well if Russia launch a nuke USA could have anti missles placed in Poland to intercept. Russian defectors have a close place to go. Russia's territory cannot expand.
It's easy to say look at morals of USA placing military assests next to Russia but life or death does not worried about such things.
Good points.
I wonder though whether anti-missile defences close to Russia is really productive or the most effective way to show a deterrent. I always like Reagan's Star Wars dreams
Well they most likely have all of Reagan's Toys but for diplomatic reasons they can't openly admit it.
originally posted by: UKTruth
originally posted by: ms898
originally posted by: UKTruth
originally posted by: ms898
originally posted by: UKTruth
originally posted by: ms898
a reply to: BlueAjah
Let's take Poland as an example. They are next to Russia ( who is a strategic threat to USA). By being in an alliance USA get to place defence structures and bases inside Poland's borders. If they weren't allies there is a good chance Russia would try to sieze control which they have tried in the past. Poland's military would not be a great help to USA but their regional cooperation is priceless to USAs strategic defensive goals.
Understood, buy I am not sure what legitimate strategic defensive goals the US have in Poland.
Well if Russia launch a nuke USA could have anti missles placed in Poland to intercept. Russian defectors have a close place to go. Russia's territory cannot expand.
It's easy to say look at morals of USA placing military assests next to Russia but life or death does not worried about such things.
Good points.
I wonder though whether anti-missile defences close to Russia is really productive or the most effective way to show a deterrent. I always like Reagan's Star Wars dreams
Well they most likely have all of Reagan's Toys but for diplomatic reasons they can't openly admit it.
Possibly yes and would be better than relying on Poland or any other NATO country...
originally posted by: UKTruth
originally posted by: MrSpad
originally posted by: UKTruth
originally posted by: BlueAjah
I think a more important question is - which of those countries would come to the defense of the US if we were attacked?
How many of them actually have the means to defend the US against a large attack, perhaps by China or Russia?
How many of these countries put their investments into their own country, without worrying about building up their national defense, because they count on the US and other larger countries to protect them?
Well, Blue, Article 5 would suggest that all the countries would be obliged to help defend America, though not sure how useful it would be.
The same with the RIo Pact, most of Central and South America would be brought in. What the would provide/along with NATO would be global reach, control of sea lanes and special operation forces.
This underlines a point made by someone earlier that that all these pacts can actually have the effect of escalating...
originally posted by: thesungod
a reply to: UKTruth
We have a written, signed and declared defense pact with them. We should honor it as long as they are honoring their side.
Just my opinion.