• The coalition united in bombing ISIS, is becoming increasingly reliant on the US to do the job they
    86 replies, posted
[QUOTE=BusterBluth;46751252]Its origins where still pre occupation by years. Its a huge stretch to blame the US for the current situation. People also temd to forget Saddam was every bit as brutal as ISIS.[/QUOTE] You could argue that he was keeping it down. Of course (IMO) the US etc did a good thing by toppling Saddam. Although you always gotta wonder "what if"..
[QUOTE=Jsm;46751480]You could argue that he was keeping it down. Of course (IMO) the US etc did a good thing by toppling Saddam. Although you always gotta wonder "what if"..[/QUOTE] "What if the Brits and French didn't come up with the Sykes–Picot Agreement?"
Isn't it pretty logical to let the best at something do the bigger part?
[QUOTE=proch;46751692]Isn't it pretty logical to let the best at something do the bigger part?[/QUOTE] It gets old when people say they'll help and the most they do is offload old weapons they were gonna scrap either way.
[QUOTE=Swilly;46747002]Well of course they're tapering off. We're literally NATO. France wants to go to Mali? American C130s. They want to bomb Libya? Oh hey our fucking aircraft Carriers. [editline]18th December 2014[/editline] Europeans have actually abused the crap out of American Military and Economic power at several key points in history.[/QUOTE] You're not [I]wrong[/I], you're just stupid and don't seem to realize how alliances work. Besides, Libya was mainly carried on Italian airbases, with some major fucking participation by all member-states of the coalition. Problem is, major participation from say France or Denmark, is still minor compared to the US, because, you know, the US military is fucking huge. The assumption that Europe has ever 'abused' American military or economic power is ridiculous. Besides the fact that it's basically impossible to 'abuse' another country's assets because that country is willingly offering those assets up for use; any offering the US has ever made has only ever been with self-interest in mind. It's failed a few times throughout history, but it's always been with the intention of benefit to the US.
[QUOTE=Jsm;46751480]You could argue that he was keeping it down. Of course (IMO) the US etc did a good thing by toppling Saddam. Although you always gotta wonder "what if"..[/QUOTE] It's a terrible argument though. Saddam wasn't just some heavy handed protecter of the people, he was a brutal brutaperdon who didn't mind slaughtering civilians on a whim. I'm sure Iraq would be in the same state it is now,just with religious radicals on one side and a repressive regime on the other.
part of me thinks that the US wanted insurgent elements to organize themselves in a big movement so that their leaders would make easier targets
This sounds a lot like a group project in school. Everyone is supposed to do something, but one person will do it all. Then everyone shares the grade.
[t]http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/world/carriers-2012.gif[/t] US carrier fleet vs other nations fleets.
[QUOTE=Code3Response;46751968]This sounds a lot like a group project in school. Everyone is supposed to do something, but one person will do it all. Then everyone shares the grade.[/QUOTE] Military wise the US has the largest pull of any of the members in the coalition. Wouldn't it make sense for the US to pull more weight than the others? Since, ya know, they can?
[QUOTE=Solo Wing;46751997]Military wise the US has the largest pull of any of the members in the coalition. Wouldn't it make sense for the US to pull more weight than the others? Since, ya know, they can?[/QUOTE] You could almost say the US needs to check its military [sp]privilege[/sp] :v:
[QUOTE=Riller;46751916]You're not [I]wrong[/I], you're just stupid and don't seem to realize how alliances work. Besides, Libya was mainly carried on Italian airbases, with some major fucking participation by all member-states of the coalition. Problem is, major participation from say France or Denmark, is still minor compared to the US, because, you know, the US military is fucking huge. The assumption that Europe has ever 'abused' American military or economic power is ridiculous. Besides the fact that it's basically impossible to 'abuse' another country's assets because that country is willingly offering those assets up for use; any offering the US has ever made has only ever been with self-interest in mind. It's failed a few times throughout history, but it's always been with the intention of benefit to the US.[/QUOTE] The Bretton Woods Agreement fell apart because Europe abused the crap outta it. Most of the oil in the Middle East goes towards Europe(that's shifting but at the time of the Iraqi Invasion this was true). And the reason the US military was huge was because we spent so much money funding the reconstruction of Europe that putting a lot of our military there in place just made sense, same with NATO. But now Europe expects us to come and help them because ya'll have [B]fuck all[/B] for power projection, just look at how other nations laugh at EU sanctions and the fact that the EU itself seems to hurt itself in the process. [editline]19th December 2014[/editline] To put it plainly, Europe needs to step it up because its becoming more and more irrelevant. Yeah, the US does a lot of trade with Europe, but it does a lot more with the rest of the world. It makes sense from a budgetary and foreign policy perspective to just leave Europe.
[QUOTE=paindoc;46751996][t]http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/world/carriers-2012.gif[/t] US carrier fleet vs other nations fleets.[/QUOTE] Size doesn't really mean a lot though. The Japanese Empire made a supercarrier about 265m long. It's all about the technology and features on the ship, not the size.
[QUOTE=joost1120;46752339]Size doesn't really mean a lot though. The Japanese Empire made a supercarrier about 265m long. It's all about the technology and features on the ship, not the size.[/QUOTE] yea we americans just build giant boats and put nothing on them, just to scare people.
[QUOTE=joost1120;46752339]Size doesn't really mean a lot though. The Japanese Empire made a supercarrier about 265m long. It's all about the technology and features on the ship, not the size.[/QUOTE] Size is everything. Thats why the LHD's which carry huge amounts of marines (in a Marine Expeditionary Unit), armor, helicopters, guns, artillery, and trucks are useless duh
[QUOTE=Swilly;46747002]Well of course they're tapering off. We're literally NATO. France wants to go to Mali? American C130s. They want to bomb Libya? Oh hey our fucking aircraft Carriers. [editline]18th December 2014[/editline] Europeans have actually abused the crap out of American Military and Economic power at several key points in history.[/QUOTE] Maybe because US owns more aircraft carriers then all other countries combined and maybe, just maybe, US spends more money on military then all NATO countries combined.
[QUOTE=joost1120;46752339]Size doesn't really mean a lot though. The Japanese Empire made a supercarrier about 265m long. It's all about the technology and features on the ship, not the size.[/QUOTE] i mean i know jack shit about military tech but am i wrong to assume that our tech/features on our ship rivals if not surpasses other nations?
[QUOTE=stupid10er;46752883]i mean i know jack shit about military tech but am i wrong to assume that our tech/features on our ship rivals if not surpasses other nations?[/QUOTE] The new supercarriers with magnetic launch assist, more electronics (less crew, more automation) , redesigned Island, improved power plant, and a better radar profile along with a host of other improvements do surpass other nations. The Nimitz is pretty old
So much American bias.
Europe is able to get by without spending much on military BECAUSE the US is always there to back them up. Imagine how brash Russia and China would be if literally no western power had any military to speak of.
The "coalition" was never more than a smokescreen to make the bombings look less blatantly unilateral and imperialistic. Which, of course, they are.
As someone else has stated, misleading story. The 97% statistic is for Syrian bombings, which as far as I know no EU nations ever agreed to get involved with in the first place. In Iraq the numbers are more balanced.
[QUOTE=Swilly;46752290]The Bretton Woods Agreement fell apart because Europe abused the crap outta it. Most of the oil in the Middle East goes towards Europe(that's shifting but at the time of the Iraqi Invasion this was true). And the reason the US military was huge was because we spent so much money funding the reconstruction of Europe that putting a lot of our military there in place just made sense, same with NATO. But now Europe expects us to come and help them because ya'll have [B]fuck all[/B] for power projection, just look at how other nations laugh at EU sanctions and the fact that the EU itself seems to hurt itself in the process. [editline]19th December 2014[/editline] To put it plainly, Europe needs to step it up because its becoming more and more irrelevant. Yeah, the US does a lot of trade with Europe, but it does a lot more with the rest of the world. It makes sense from a budgetary and foreign policy perspective to just leave Europe.[/QUOTE] Your posting in this thread has been akin to a doctor moaning to his sons with part-time retail jobs about why [i]he[/i] has to pay the most towards the mortgage and utilities. The US defence budget is over ten times the size of the UK's, France's or Germany's. Not only does the US spend more on its armed forces than the rest of NATO combined but it has the luxury of not being spread across dozens of bickering nations with wholly different doctrines, political outlooks and overseas interests. Of course it [i]can[/i] do more than European countries and therefore it [i]does[/i] do more, that seems pretty logical. Even leaving aside all the significant European contributions to NATO operations and largely/entirely independent operations (Mali, Sierra Leone) you refuse to acknowledge yet still exist, your ridiculous claim that Europe has no power projection of its own and the fact that not all of Europe even shares your level of overseas interests and simply meets its alliance commitments... at the end of the day you can't account for over a third of the [b]global[/b] military expenditure and then complain with a straight face that no one else is keeping pace with your overseas deployments.
[QUOTE=Sir_takeslot;46747029]It's because no other military in the world even comes close to our logistic abilities.[/QUOTE] yeh it's almost like no other developed western nation has a horrendously disproportionate military budget and no socialised healthcare lmao
[QUOTE=ChestyMcGee;46753726]yeh it's almost like no other developed western nation has a horrendously disproportionate military budget and no socialised healthcare lmao[/QUOTE] [IMG]http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/2/2b/U.S._Federal_Spending_-_FY_2011.png[/IMG] As of 2011, defense spending was at 18%, which I would hardly care disproportionate. [editline]19th December 2014[/editline] Also, a huge part of that is wages.
[QUOTE=ImperialGuard;46753842]As of 2011, defense spending was at 18%, which I would hardly care disproportionate[/QUOTE] when you consider that most other countries hover around 5%, and that the US spends nearly 6x its nearest competitor in defense spending, which is a nation under practical dictatorship, you have to wonder
I got a lot of dumbs but no engagement. [editline]19th December 2014[/editline] [QUOTE=catbarf;46749638]In that the war in Iraq led to Wikileaks led to the Arab Spring led to the unification of radicals in Syria led to the formation of ISIS, sure. That's still a tenuous connection. The underlying conditions that led to the formation and success of ISIS are ongoing political and ethnic conflicts that US intervention in Iraq didn't cause.[/QUOTE] Maybe I should have worded it better, 2003 paved the road and allowed for ISIS to grow. Would ISIS or something like it have formed if Saddam stuck around until Arab Spring 2011? Probably, but the Americans were the first ones to kick the door in so the spotlight gets put on them.
[QUOTE=ChestyMcGee;46754188]when you consider that most other countries hover around 5%, and that the US spends nearly 6x its nearest competitor in defense spending, which is a nation under practical dictatorship, you have to wonder[/QUOTE] Wonder what? Besides the fact that we have an all volunteer military with huge benefits and decently high wages, which is a big part of that number, we also finance nearly all of NATO. Most European countries have failed to maintain their 2% and we end up shouldering most of that bill. There's also the maintenance of the largest fleet in the world.
[QUOTE=ImperialGuard;46754267]Besides the fact that we have an all volunteer military with huge benefits and decently high wages, which is a big part of that number, we also finance nearly all of NATO. Most European countries have failed to maintain their 2% and we end up shouldering most of that bill. There's also the maintenance of the largest fleet in the world.[/QUOTE] yeh there's all those things you gotta wonder what the point is though right? surely? what is all of that gigantic force being used for? what is the largest fleet on the planet being used for? it's 90% deterrence. the only american force currently engaged in anything meaningful other than logistics for humanitarian aid is the air force (and navy?) in the (completely useless) strikes on ISIS. and deniable ops it's a pretty sorry affair. i'm sure there are a million logical reasons why such a ridiculously huge fighting force exists but i find it a sad situation, one that will hopefully become even more archaic in the next twenty years or so the way the world is going
[QUOTE=ChestyMcGee;46754292]yeh there's all those things you gotta wonder what the point is though right? surely? what is all of that gigantic force being used for? what is the largest fleet on the planet being used for? it's 90% deterrence. the only american force currently engaged in anything meaningful other than logistics for humanitarian aid is the air force (and navy?) in the (completely useless) strikes on ISIS. and deniable ops [/QUOTE] I would hardly call them useless, the strikes have killed several high level isis members
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.