Dying For Montenegro

[Guest]

Another thing worth pointing out is that if you look at NATO the only competent military is the USA. And, the UK... although they are in a league far below our own. Seriously, go down the whole list. Not a single one would be any help in a conflict.

Ok, Dog. That's silly.

Of course it's silly! The USA is the number 1 most powerful military on earth, and 4 other NATO allies are also among the top ten military powers. The combined military power of our NATO allies, even without including USA, is greater than that of Russia, which is supposedly the number 2 military power. https://www.wonderslist.com/10-most-powerful-militaries/.

Not only that, there are a number of analysts who even doubt Russia's number 2 rating, and consider the much vaunted Russian military might to be a "paper tiger." Germany, for one, seems to hold that opinion, as does The Watchman.

On the other hand, thanks to Trump, Russia may be gaining in power and influence now as Trump continues to reveal himself to be ignorant, inconsistent, stupid, self-contradictory and unreliable.

[_MeDotOrg]

You've got Mohammed cracking the top 10 name list in the UK.

By the way, the name Donald was less popular in the United States in 2016 (the last year for which there are statistics) than in any other measured year. 1934 was the best year for the name Donald, when 30,400 newborns were given the name, according to U.S. Social Security Administration records.

In 2016, when Trump was elected to the highest office in the nation, 621 babies were named Donald.

[_Kishkumen]

What about 2017?

[_MeDotOrg]

What about 2017?

Well, a curious thing. The first number I got for 2016 was from Time, which reported 621 Donalds.

But when I went to the Social Security Website and looked for Donald, it just showed the ranking of the name Donald, which remained at 488 for both 2016 and 2017.

[_Gunnar]

You've got Mohammed cracking the top 10 name list in the UK.

On the other hand, Russia's Muslim population is increasing faster than Great Britain's. It is projected to grow to 13.3% of their population by 2020 and 15.6% by 2030.

[_Themis]

The US and other countries in NATO have demonstrated they are serious about defending each other.

No they haven't. That's well demonstrated by the Ukraine. The fact that we won't let them into NATO, the fact that none of the NATO members will stand up for the Ukraine, despite all the notable players having their own various treaties and agreements in place obliging them to do so.

They are not part of NATO so it does nothing to demonstrate anything, and there is some support being given to Ukraine. I think it should include weapons to make Russians pay like was done in Afghanistan in the 1980's.

Another thing worth pointing out is that if you look at NATO the only competent military is the USA. And, the UK... although they are in a league far below our own. Seriously, go down the whole list. Not a single one would be any help in a conflict. Sure, the list is long, but it's like a room full of kids vs Ivan Drago. The idea of brining the kids together is an even bigger cluster than watching them get their asses beat one by one.

All you are doing is demonstrating you own ignorance of the world. NATO countries have some of the most sophisticated weapons and their training is comparable to the US. They even do plenty of training with each other so as to be able to work well, and get out and learn some history.

Serious about defending each other? It's laughable, with numerous examples to demonstrate the fact. See Afghanistan. They weren't helpful at all. They were the opposite and drug us down. Not just logistically, but in terms of moral and political will to see the mission through. And then while this is going on these same people are importing muslim refugees as fast as they can, ghettos forming all over Europe, undermining all the stuff we've been working on and dying for. You've got Mohammed cracking the top 10 name list in the UK. Crime through the roof in London. Paris. Denmark. On and on. But, yah, sure, they're totally going to defend us. They can't protect their own daughters from getting raped in their own cities.

How is it you can make so many assertions and not even get close to one being right? You don't even realize you are the one that is part of the problem in this world.

[_Water Dog]

All you are doing is demonstrating you own ignorance of the world. NATO countries have some of the most sophisticated weapons and their training is comparable to the US. They even do plenty of training with each other so as to be able to work well, and get out and learn some history.

I have cross trained with many foreign militaries, in addition to working in conjunction with them in Afghanistan and elsewhere.

[_Themis]

All you are doing is demonstrating you own ignorance of the world. NATO countries have some of the most sophisticated weapons and their training is comparable to the US. They even do plenty of training with each other so as to be able to work well, and get out and learn some history.

I have cross trained with many foreign militaries, in addition to working in conjunction with them in Afghanistan and elsewhere.

OH well then we should just believe what ever you say.

[_Water Dog]

OH well then we should just believe what ever you say.

I couldn't care less what you do or don't believe. Of what benefit would it be for me to makeup stories to "win" an internet discussion? For me the only reason to come to forums like this and discuss topics is to learn. Even if I disagree, I find it useful to be exposed to other ways of thinking. The arguments being presented on this thread are embarrassingly weak. Nobody has had anything mildly intelligent or interesting to say. All stuff anybody can read by simply pulling up Wikipedia and various think tank papers written half a century ago. Yah, I know the reasoning behind NATO.

The point of my comment was to highlight the folly of your attitude. If offered an opinion, and your response was, "rofl, you're only showing your own ignorance, blah blah blah blah. I totally know what I'm talking about. Blah blah blah." I have no idea where you are coming from, being so sure of yourself as you are. Where is your information about NATO and foreign militaries coming from, Wikipedia, some books you read in college? You may very well know some things I don't. I make no claim to be an "expert" on the military capabilities of all the members of NATO.

But, truth is, I am speaking from the context of having first-hand experience working with NATO and a selection of foreign militaries. That doesn't make me an all-around expert, but it does give me some insight from a certain vantage point. Do you have any experience with NATO? No, then how can you be so sure of yourself? Just as it would be foolish for me to make stuff up to win an argument, it would be foolish for you to make an argument and dismiss other points of view based on a position of ignorance. Unless you have some special insight that I'm lacking, you are guilty of exactly what you accused me of, demonstrating your own ignorance.

You don't have to believe me. There are a lot of people who have worked with NATO. What are they saying? I participate on several military forums dedicated to SOF veterans. This Trump/NATO business is a major topic of discussion right now. How about you take a stroll over to those forums and see how the conversations are going. Spoiler Alert, there is near-unanimous consent that NATO is old thinking and they applaud Trump potentially shaking it up or pulling out altogether... for all the reasons I've given in this thread. They see Trump's behavior towards NATO as good and cheer it. I challenge you to show me someone who agrees with you. Show me a vet of recent wars with credible experience that would agree with your assertion of NATO member's military capabilities. Not a politician. Not some Vietnam-era retiree. Not some neocon warhawk twat at National Review. A normal guy who served his country that is excited, based on his experiences with NATO, about his own sons being subject to this NATO agreement ten to twenty years from now when they are of age. Show me that man.

[_Themis]

I make no claim to be an "expert" on the military capabilities of all the members of NATO.

Ya everyone here knows that. You made a claim that all NATO members other then the US and UK have all but useless military capabilities. You never even backed up that statement. You have made all whole list of really poor statements about things like crime over the top in places like London or Paris, which most here would know is not true. It's just obvious here you are getting all this really bad information. Information you made but never gave any evidence to show maybe you have some or all of it right. I don't feel the need to show obvious false statements wrong. You need to show extraordinary claims as true.

How about you take a stroll over to those forums and see how the conversations are going. Spoiler Alert, there is near-unanimous consent that NATO is old thinking and they applaud Trump potentially shaking it up or pulling out altogether... for all the reasons I've given in this thread.

Forums packed with Trump supporters. Not a surprise what things they believe.

I challenge you to show me someone who agrees with you. Show me a vet of recent wars with credible experience that would agree with your assertion of NATO member's military capabilities. Not a politician. Not some Vietnam-era retiree. Not some neocon warhawk twat at National Review. A normal guy who served his country that is excited, based on his experiences with NATO, about his own sons being subject to this NATO agreement ten to twenty years from now when they are of age. Show me that man.

Why would some average Joe guy in the military with some experience know more then high level military personal who have access and experience with all this, as well as some politicians who also have access to a lot of information average Joe doesn't. You made the assertions, so why don't you start with some evidence to suggest an assertion is correct.