You asked us to help America, which we did and wrongly too I believe since it was based only on false American intelligence.
Which was shared by 4 other European countries, so you need to blame those countries as well since we all share the same intelligence, let' s address the elephant in the room, this whole notion that the US got the intelligent alone is preposterous! But when the chips fall, they don't want to take any grief at all.
As the old saying goes, when America sneezes, everyone else catches a cold. NATO is going to pay their fair share and their are signs it's going to happen.
-8 ( +1 / -9 )
It's time Trump and America should be paying their fair share of the military costs in defending Europe.
Then Europe should protect itself and leave us alone, but I don't think it'll ever come to that and every European leader knows that. Membership has its privileges.
There are thousands of American companies in Europe. There are many tens of thousands of American living and working in Europe but it does not pay a fair share for the military coats.
Those people are working, can't defeat the Russians with a paint brush.
-6 ( +1 / -7 )
Your President Bush asked for help from the British forces for his wars in Iraq and Afghanistan.
I'm not talking about Bush or Afghanistan, I am talking about NATO and the fact that we have to float most of the costs, doesn't seem fair to me.
Unlike in America, every dead British trooper killed was given an honors parade through the streets of his barracks and the people lined the streets. In America they preferred not to think about their fallen hero's, like a rerun of the Vietnam VETS.
It was the Brits who discovered radar. It was the Brits who broke the Nazi secret codes.
It was the US that gave the Brits our F-35 again, you are welcome, stealth is a wonderful tool.
-9 ( +1 / -10 )
Is that what they teach you in school?
What do they teach you, Europe defeated the Nazis by themselves?
The US didn't even join in until it was all over bar the shouting.
That is correct and thank God we did, otherwise das Viertes Reich would have won.
The US certainly made a valuable contribution during the latter part of the war and in its aftermath, but you didn't win the war single-handedly and you certainly did not 'save' Europe.
I said, overwhelmingly. You are welcome.
-9 ( +1 / -10 )
But it did not achieve it alone and certainly would not achieved it without the help and sacrifice of the Soviets who also defeated the Nazi along with the British. The glory is not just an America one. 20 million Soviets died.
Sorry, we fought two wars, the Atlantic and the Pacific, every little help counts, but OVERWHELMINGLY it was the US that sacrificed the most, not to mention we spent billions on nation building and helped rebuild Germany as well.
In one comment you stated Sweden was not ready to defend itself and even a neutral country has that right just as Japan too has the right of defense.
It does and it will from the looks of its growing military.
Then if Sweden is attacked by Russia, NATO including America would be committed to coming to its defense.
Yes, provided they pay their fair share.
If Russia continues with its threats NATO should continue to expand to all the countries on Russia's borders.
Yeah, I would like to see that happen.
-9 ( +1 / -10 )
The US, UK, Canada, Australia, New Zealand among others played huge roles, but Russia probably a bigger one.
Yes, the smaller nations with less firepower less man power and military might did help to an extent, dully noted.
-8 ( +2 / -10 )
shame on you for dismissing the thousands of NATO troops killed in Afghanistan and helping America with its terrorist war. More than 1,000 families lost loved ones. Hundreds more in Iraq. Please, show a little respect.
Don't give me that. NATO is not the strongest military to enforce anything, they are good at peace keeping, but that's just about it. Shame on the Europeans that think it's ok for Americans to do the heavy fighting while they sit back and wait until all the smoke clears. You think that's right? I sure as heck don't!
What do you actually mean about pay more.
It means this...
-9 ( +1 / -10 )
Probably you don't know but Sweden is a neutral country and not a member country of NATO.
What are you talking about. I guess you don't know Sweden and although not an active member, but contributing member, they are building up their forces and contemplating joining
SWEDEN’S Aurora-17 drill, which continues until the end of September, is the biggest war game that the supposedly neutral country has carried out for 23 years. Not only does it involve 19,000 of Sweden’s armed forces (about half of them), including its Home Guard, but also more than 1,500 troops from Finland, Denmark, Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, France, Norway and America. All except Finland are members of NATO, the big western alliance.
The size of the exercise and its main focus, the defence of Gotland, an island in the Baltic Sea some 350km (220 miles) from the Russian enclave of Kaliningrad, is a reflection of how insecure Sweden feels. Vladimir Putin, having gobbled up Crimea and attacked Ukraine, is flexing his muscles near the Baltics and Scandinavia. Russia’s massive Zapad-17 military exercise, which finished this week, involved sending 100,000 troops to Belarus and the Baltic to practise repelling the “Western Coalition”. Foreign observers were banned, as they never are from NATO exercises. (Perhaps luckily: a Russian helicopter reportedly fired missiles at spectators by mistake, though the government denies this.)
America wasn't combat ready at the beginning of WW1. Even WW2 was late in joining. The combined troops numbers of the NATO countries is much greater than the total number of troops in America. NATO countries have more than 5 million troops and reserves compared with a total 2.5 million Americans.
And yet, it was the US that saved WWII Europe.
-9 ( +1 / -10 )
Nor did America. It would have been a direct war between the west and Russia.
No, Obama the appeaser as with everything that involved military conflict decided not to do anything, giving Russia the green light and emboldening it.
Have you already forgotten the major role NATO countries played in Afghanistan and Iraq? Short term memory.
Yes and what a big help and difference they made......not.
Why there are only 51 American bases and 65,000 troops in Europe. There are more American troops is this region.
The bigger question is, the European leaders don't want them to leave indirectly because they know the consequences if that were to happen.
When Trump meets with Putin will he demand the immediate release of Ukrainian political prisoners. Will Trump continue to condemn the illegal annexation of Crimea and Sevastopol by Russia?
I don't know, ask the previous President why he didn't do that, he had time since 2014 to address the issue.
Whether you like it or not Europe is America's strongest ally. Trump should end his bully boy tactics and treats he has no intention of carrying out. I think an American withdraw from NATO would need some kind of agreement from congress as would shutting the 51 European bases.
Exactly, Europe is America's strongest ally, so because Russia poses a bigger threat to them and its on their doorstep, they need to pay more and do more, they lead, we back them up. That way they can't come back and complain we always stick our nose into other peoples conflicts, so to avoid the criticism, Europe pays more and they will lead. Problem solved and its fair.
America will be unable to provide cheaper gas to Europe than Russia because of the need to transport it across oceans.
You don't know that, there is no way you can know that. Why is the left always have to spin. weening themselves of Russian gas is the greatest thing that the European leaders dream of.
Your threats are as just as empty as those made by your president.
Threats? I'm not a politician, but Europe will pay more because they can't afford to lose the US, that's not a threat, that's a promise.
The trade in the EU is almost equal to that of America at about $19 trillion and within the next five years will go above it. Trump can't ignore that.
Trade has nothing to do with military defense.
-8 ( +1 / -9 )
-The amount saved if Trump closed all the American bases in NATO countries and withdrew the troops and equipment back to stateside.
As I have said, they wouldn't stand a chance, they can save a lot of money and the Russians can save even more money.
If you honestly believe that Russia can invade the Baltics and not be beaten back by NATO, you're delusional.
Actually, I'm not, the US has been basically been in constant military combat readiness mode and conflicts for 100 years, how about Sweden? The rest of Europe? Sorry, don't kid yourself. Again, every European leader knows keeping the US in NATO is vital to its overall survival.
Russia is not some steamroller. It has nukes.
Which is more than enough, not to mention some of the brutalist military tactics.
NATO without US support CAN beat Russia
-11 ( +1 / -12 )
You seem to forget that Britain and France are nuclear armed so there won't be any Russian invasions. There might be more border violations and hostile attacks in countries like Ukraine.
They didn't even try to stop the invasion of Crimea! I don't believe that for a second as dovish as Europe is and as incompetent as Obama was, there is no way Trump or even Bush....heck, even Bill Clinton wouldn't have allowed that to happen.
America will also suffer. Its not some kind of isolated world. America can't exist just on its own. American companies were the first to move their bases oversea for better dollar returns.
No one is saying that, but when it comes to the security and the safety of Europe, ever leader knows the only country that has the power to save the the dovish Europe is the US doesn't matter what the little people think, but every leader knows it and if we can export natural gas, it won't be long before they all bail on Russia to come to the US.
It was America who started trading with China and if its out of control then the fault lies with America.
We are not talking about China. Do you want to talk about Afghanistan as well?
America has been the biggest of the globalist and maintains an empire of 800 military bases oversea.
Guess what, if we decided to pull them out, European leaders would have a meltdown of biblical proportions.
-11 ( +1 / -12 )
Riiight, because "World Wars are good and easy win" right?
Not at all, but if there were a hypothetical attack on the Baltic's, there is no way NATO could successfully defend them without the US, they would be overrun and crushed faster than you can crush a soda can.
And American Cult 45ists will join in celebration. They'll celebrate what they said they wanted Trump to do, and that was take down the American system, which Trump has been able to do with remarkable ease.
Actually, the last admin. took it down, the President is trying to restore it, but the socialists leftists in the US are trying their best to thwart that.
If Putin gains more global power and Trump’s willing to cede even more to him by backing the US out of Europe and other places, what's going to happen to the US, especially if ties with 'allies' are weakened.
Now that Trump and the GOP hold control, and if they side with Russia, you have to assume Russia will have even more global control. Gas, oil and thug capitalism uber alles.
Yeah, leave the Tom Clancy Novels alone.
GoTrumpers who railed against 'globalists': will you cheer on this shift in power?
Yup, but not the way the left think
-10 ( +2 / -12 )
And then you have oil, which we import. That’s a story in it’s own.
Not for long.
-15 ( +1 / -16 )
Let Europe take care of itself, let's see how long they last. Putin would have the biggest party of the century.
-17 ( +1 / -18 )
Donnie fiasco picking a safe yes man to get himself a get out of jail free card. "Judge Kavanaugh has impeccable credentials, unsurpassed qualifications, and a proven commitment to equal justice under the law," lmao
Hmmmmm.....so that’s why liberals are in a complete meltdown and conservatives are happy? Yeah, makes a lot of sense to me, lol
-3 ( +2 / -5 )
Respect goes both ways.
-24 ( +2 / -26 )
Goodbye to "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness."
Imagine that, liberals have to live within the law. Wow!
-3 ( +3 / -6 )
while Obama attempted to make insurance affordable.
Well, that bubble lie bursted.
To think there are people who use the word “swamp” in their revolutionary anarchist rhetoric, and actually take it seriously.
America is truly screwed.
No, Democrats are screwed.
-1 ( +3 / -4 )
As more information came out about the other “finalists” I actually think this was the best pick. Admittedly, I’m still in the Amy Barrett camp, but to fair and honest about her, she has only been on a Court bench for 8 months. But that written, she will be an excellent future replacement for any of the remaining liberals (male or female) whom are still on the bench.
I agree, Barrett is an outstanding pick and I think the President strategically played his cards right, allow Barrett to get a little more seasoned and I'm sure she would be an excellent pick, very strong conservative and very strong constitutionalist.
Judge Kavanaugh appears to be a reliable Originalist – that’s better than Justice Kennedy, and while his clerking for Kennedy had bothered me, Justice Gorsuch did too, and he has proven to be the Jurist America needs.
Yes, PDJT has once again made another correct choice. And, no, I am not tired of winning yet. MAGA/KAG!
What I like about Kavanaugh's record, he really follows the constitution, a huge plus for democracy and the rule of law.
-5 ( +2 / -7 )
Interesting choice - not one I'm reflexively opposed to. But politics plays a role, and considering McConnell's atrocious, frankly illegal behavior in the past, there could could be rough-going ahead.
Now, now the left can jump or say anything about the legality of politics, they need to be very careful otherwise when they talk a bunch of bones will fly out of their mouths.
The Repubs have poisoned the well, so no matter who Trump nominates, pushback is (sadly) inevitable but also understandable.
It wouldn't matter who the pick was, the Dems would oppose that pick No matter what, unless it were a progressive then the Dems wouldn't have any qualms on supporting the nominee, the left always wanted activist judges and thank God, that is going to stop for a very, very long time. "Ginsburg, are you listening to me?!"
From what I've read, Kavanaugh's extensive experience will ironically work against him: investigation into his previous legal decisions will push off his confirmation (if it happens) until after the midterms. And I'd like to see a single Repub complain about that
Yeah, anyway, he'll get confirmed and that will solve that one problem, two more to go.
-4 ( +3 / -7 )
I hope you are right and this guy turns out to be the next Alito. I can’t shake the feeling though that Kavanaugh is a mistake. As for Ginsburg, it does seem like she isn’t really all there anymore.
@Wolfpack I have a tad bit the same reservations as you and agree with you mostly, but I was looking over Kavanaugh's record, he's actually for the most part pretty consistent, the liberals are completely terrified of him, so according to most legal experts, they seem pretty satisfied that he will protect and rule according to the constitution, but if he will be on issues like ACA or abortion a waffler remains to be seen on those issues to be brutally honest, I don't trust any of them until I've seen how they ruled except for Barrett, but as you said, Ginsburg is pretty much just there and it won't be that much longer that she can sit on the bench and her departure might be sooner than later, so Trump still has time to appoint one or two more to the bench. As far as Kavanuagh is concerned, I personally think he will be ok, again, just going by his record.
In group settings with the other judges she has a far off lost look in her eyes. But she is such a hardcore Lefty partisan there is no way she would retire voluntarily.
Definitely not and her dislike of the President will try to hold on as long as possible, even if that means bringing every kind of vitamin, Ensure, protein bars, IV to help her hold on.
I don’t wish her ill health so unless a Democrat wins and takes office in January 2021, she will hang on in hopes of preventing a Republican from getting another pick before considering retirement.
I agree, all jokes aside, but Ginsburg and Breyer know their time is rapidly coming up and make No mistake they know the consequences were they to retire and that alone is adrenaline for the both of them.
-5 ( +2 / -7 )
You could ask anyone who's been raped about that, if you really wanted to know.
Yes, I clearly understand that, but what about late term?
Besides, it's kind of ironic that the man who has allegedly paid for numerous abortions is trying to limit them for others by appointing conservative SC judges.
I'm sorry, but you have absolutely zero proof of that. Please stay away from Mother Jones and MoveOn.org.
One rule for the elite, of course...
The previous elite group missed the chance.
Oh, nice set up. Let me guess, an ex-journalist who cruises over to the US in a private jet to watch pro sports?
-7 ( +2 / -9 )
Trump has nothing to show for his meeting except suspended war games.
At least he didn't give out billions of cash, or gave concessions or an appeasement that would have been a big stain and a huge embarrassment.
-2 ( +1 / -3 )
1) where did you get the idea that i'm on the left? i could be a real conservative or a moderate.
I could also be a liberal.
2) trump's "presidency" is a RICO scam. mueller put gotti in prison for the same thing.
Got killed people, had people killed. Trump didn't kill anyone, he won't be going to prison, if Hillary didn't go, rest assured, he's not going.
3) what kind of perv will want to go deep in trump's wrinkled, old ass?
Why is it that liberals can't have a decent conversation without getting into the personal mud?
Let's face it, Trump will probably get at least one more SCOTUS nomination when Ginsberg dies/retires, she's already 85. And possibly one more after that because Breyer is 79. Those will be the defining picks for the court, not this one. Kennedy was fairly reliably conservative on most issues, so replacing him with someone slightly more conservative isn't really that much of a change.
I completely agree.
-9 ( +2 / -11 )
Did you have any idea that abortion is a religion/ethics problem? See, Trump is critical of "witch hunts" so we can guess that he takes a dim view of religious overreach into personal affairs. I mean, his grandpa was a brothel owner in Alaska, right? Expecting Trump to morph into a genuinely pious anti-abortionist is a tall order.
So if the Democrats were in power, you would have been perfectly ok with an activist SCJ on the bench. Yes or No?
-7 ( +2 / -9 )
They care not about how women are actually treated in the US.
Had no idea abortion was a caring issue.
-7 ( +3 / -10 )
Good try, Mr bass. But there's little point in yet again posting up a list of transgressions with links to back them up,
I get it, the rambles anything that they can get and so far, everything has failed. So if Trump cures cancer may we add that to the list of possible transgressions? LOL
only for you to ignore/not read them and go off on a tangent about liberals. Or Hillary.
I'm not worried about Hillary, she will N-E-V-E-R become President, thank God.
It's a disappointing but predictable move by Trump.
Disappointing for the left, I totally agree, ain't getting NO arguments from me on that one.
Perhaps he's impressed with Kavanaugh's SJ learnings. They certainly like to lord it (pun intended) over their peers in the religious orders.
Not a good time to be a woman in the US. But then, when is it a good time?
Oh, stop, you have 8 States that allow abortion and even if Roe vs Wade is overturned, abortion laws would revert back to the States, so all is not lost at all. The fear mongering from the US left or from the socialist outsiders is not going to stop this man from being confirmed.
-8 ( +2 / -10 )
If they can send babies to court, they can certainly send the man baby to jail.
Trump's activities are legion in their awfulness, picking SC judges to keep him out of the slammer isn't going to work.
Again, won't happen and don't give me that, if Hillary were President, she would never appoint a conservative to the SC, she would get roasted by her party and constituents, she would have picked a liberal or at the very least a liberal activist judge and would have every right to do so, but she's not President and Trump is, so he is doing what any Democrat President would do in this situation. Now all we need is Breyer and Ginsburg to retire, won't be that much longer.
Eventually, his past and recent transgressions will catch up with him.
-9 ( +2 / -11 )
if trump goes to prison do his SCOTUS picks get overturned? can a convicted felon/career criminal nominate SCOTUS justices?
He is not going to prison, don't know why the left keeps saying that.
-6 ( +5 / -11 )