NSA Spied on Denmark as It Chose Its Future Fighter Aircraft: Report

Post by lumberjack » Thu, Nov 19, 2020, 9:44 AM UTC

coldtea wrote: post #106

cturner wrote: post #103

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I find the idea of a European army to be the stuff of fantasy. The reason Europe is so dependent on the US is because European NATO members have for decades chosen not to honour their spending and capability obligations to that treaty. Certainly this includes Denmark. A quick google suggests this rich nation is spending 1.3% instead of the 2% minimum. Meanwhile, Russia, a less prosperous nation with a history of musc…

> The reason Europe is so dependent on the US is because European NATO members have for decades chosen not to honour their spending and capability obligations to that treaty. Certainly this includes Denmark. A quick google suggests this rich nation is spending 1.3% instead of the 2% minimum. That "treaty" was pushed to European nations, mafia style, and voted in by right-wing parties and politicians (sometimes right-…

Post by [deleted] » Thu, Nov 19, 2020, 9:46 AM UTC

mola wrote: post #129

thefounder wrote: post #115

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>> I find the idea of a European army to be the stuff of fantasy. You are not alone. That's why some EU countries prefer to buy US millitary equipment(often at inflated prices), support US's interests in the region and beyond(i.e Iraq invasion), accept US's interferences and be done with it. The EU army project is too risky politically and strategically. Things may change if US becomes too erratic(i.e think of a supe…

Well, reality is not static, what's laughable today may be very reasonable tomorrow. EU generally would like to play ball with the US as long as the relationship is palatable predictable stable and generally cooperative. But a strong EU and an unpredictable, bullish and erratic behaviour by certain US presidents, might change this.

Post by elmo2you » Thu, Nov 19, 2020, 9:49 AM UTC

jonathanstrange wrote: post #150

elmo2you wrote: post #139

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Well Russia already annexed Crimea .. Yet another show of either (willful) ignorance or (intentional) peddling of (Western) propaganda. People may think whatever they want about what happened to Crimea and Eastern Ukraine, but to called that an annexation (or an invasion, as many have) is disingenuous as best. It's no secret (in fact, it's on public record) that it was the USA who pumped copious amounts of money in…

It was an invasion and annexation according to international law. That is crystal clear and there is not even any leeway for interpretation about it. On a side note, the kind of justifications / rationalization you give for the annexation - somebody installed politicians there that were not pleasing Russia enough - are not only factually incorrect, too, they are also irrelevant to the question whether the Crimea was…

Post by nix23 » Thu, Nov 19, 2020, 9:51 AM UTC

nl wrote: post #168

nix23 wrote: post #155

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>tank on tank the way God meant it to be Tanks are not used for that anymore, they are used as little fortresses in cities, but fighting on a open field..well you have seen what happened in the first and second iraq war.

You have this completely backwards. Tanks are deathtraps in cities. Attackers trap them with obstacles and then attack with RPGs. See the footage on YouTube in Chechnya or Syria. In the open battlefield as in Iraq 1 (especially) and 2 they were very effective although of course airpower is the key factor.

Post by jonathanstrange » Thu, Nov 19, 2020, 9:53 AM UTC

elmo2you wrote: post #175

jonathanstrange wrote: post #150

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It was an invasion and annexation according to international law. That is crystal clear and there is not even any leeway for interpretation about it. On a side note, the kind of justifications / rationalization you give for the annexation - somebody installed politicians there that were not pleasing Russia enough - are not only factually incorrect, too, they are also irrelevant to the question whether the Crimea was…

> It was an invasion and annexation according to international law. That is crystal clear and there is not even any leeway for interpretation about it. It is always a bit amusing, though also somewhat infuriating, whenever somebody writes something like this. It often is a good indicator of what likely is to follow. Truly ironic, that the people who (apparently) know the least about international law are usually the…