21–30 of 200 posts
Once the USA has a sane commander-in-chief again, it's going to need to completely overhaul its approach to the Eastern European region, among other things.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/collegeofjournalism/entries/8f7c... It’s the house style to avoid too many capitals in prose. Remember how people used to write N.A.T.O. decades ago but then simplified to NATO? Now they’re simplifying to Nato.
> Remember how people used to write N.A.T.O. decades ago but then simplified to NATO? Now they’re simplifying to Nato. I wouldn't call it "simplifying": capitalizing it has the same number of characters and is less ambiguous. I was already somewhat aware of BBC's style, but I still mis-parsed the headline and and thought "Nato" was the name or nickname of a natural person.
If I write an article about how 'France is having a heatwave' do you get confused and think 'France' must be referring to a natural person?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> US policy toward NATO has been remarkably consistent. Yeah, with Trump moving troops out of Germany because he believes, contrary to all facts, we'd be trying to rip them off. Not to mention the whole Iraq fiasco with Bush trying to rope NATO allies in a war based on lies.
So Germany is not deliquent on NATO payments? Or that doesn't qualify?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> US policy toward NATO has been remarkably consistent. Yeah, with Trump moving troops out of Germany because he believes, contrary to all facts, we'd be trying to rip them off. Not to mention the whole Iraq fiasco with Bush trying to rope NATO allies in a war based on lies.
Yes, there is a level of pettiness at work in this recent decision. What they want to do is shift to a rotational force model and deploy another Armored Brigade Combat Team to Poland every 9 months instead of having an SBCT in Germany. Meaning you have to move 2 ABCTs(~4500 Soldiers and all their equipment) in/out of the theater. The main tactical problem with that is that those forces don't have standoff distance fr…
The only thing this will lead to is a breakup or a massive relevancy drop of NATO. Europe is already emancipating themselves, the US will continue to lose influence - to the benefit of China and Russia, of course.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> US policy toward NATO has been remarkably consistent. Yeah, with Trump moving troops out of Germany because he believes, contrary to all facts, we'd be trying to rip them off. Not to mention the whole Iraq fiasco with Bush trying to rope NATO allies in a war based on lies.
So Germany is not deliquent on NATO payments? Or that doesn't qualify?
Trump just doesn't understand the geostrategic position of the U.S., where troops stationed in critical countries prevent invasions which would upturn its imperial economic order. Trump thinks the U.S. has stationed troops in SK, Germany, Taiwan for the countries' interests, where they were clearly deployed there to defend its own.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> US policy toward NATO has been remarkably consistent. Yeah, with Trump moving troops out of Germany because he believes, contrary to all facts, we'd be trying to rip them off. Not to mention the whole Iraq fiasco with Bush trying to rope NATO allies in a war based on lies.
Yes, there is a level of pettiness at work in this recent decision. What they want to do is shift to a rotational force model and deploy another Armored Brigade Combat Team to Poland every 9 months instead of having an SBCT in Germany. Meaning you have to move 2 ABCTs(~4500 Soldiers and all their equipment) in/out of the theater. The main tactical problem with that is that those forces don't have standoff distance fr…