maddogdrivethru.net

Open all night
It is currently Mon May 01, 2017 2:21 am

All times are UTC - 5 hours [ DST ]




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 141 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1 ... 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15  Next
Author Message
 Post subject: Re: Seal Team 6 in Somalia
PostPosted: Sat Jan 28, 2012 2:28 pm 
Offline
Sergeant Major
User avatar

Joined: Mon Sep 15, 2008 9:50 pm
Posts: 24406
Location: West coast of the east coast
Reputation points: 12744
Quote:
I'm confident in your eyes anything they'd send would be considered 'token'


I suspect anything short of Denmark being annihilated in a nuclear exchange would be mere tokenism.

_________________
The American Republic will endure until the day Congress discovers that it can bribe the public with the public’s money.
- misattributed to Alexis De Tocqueville

No representations made as to the accuracy of info in posted news articles or links


Top
 Profile E-mail  
 
 Post subject: Re: Seal Team 6 in Somalia
PostPosted: Sat Jan 28, 2012 4:48 pm 
Offline
Sergeant

Joined: Mon Feb 16, 2009 6:41 pm
Posts: 2198
Reputation points: 4170
mdiehl wrote:
I never said the US army did. I said that the US Army was stationed in Germany, which is between Denmark and the WP.


;)

You wrote:

mdiehl wrote:
The reason why Denmark *wasn't* a battleground is because the US put boots on the ground, physically, between Denmark and the Soviet Union.


But, seriously - without trying to be a smartass - you might want to check out the different sectors of responsability for various NATO corps.






mdiehl wrote:
Your rebuttal is infantile. Basically, your rebuttal is that the Soviets would have invaded Germany to get to Denmark without engaging in combat with US forces on their southern flank. It's a stupid claim for you to make.


It is not my claim at all. But the Soviets/WP would not only have faced US forces in the clash in Germany, not even in southern Germany. The Polish and Soviet divisions in the north tasked with the conquest of Denmark would have faced German and Danish formations. If they had tried a air/amphibious landing on Denmark they would have faced Danish units.


mdiehl wrote:
My point was to contrast the typical Continental European exercise in bullshit -- "not the right war, not OUR war, here's your token force" -- with the US defense of Europe. Four divisions plus supporting arty and air forces and as you yourself have noted a reinforcement policy of ten in ten.


I understand your viewpoint, fully, but I don't agree with it. I think Denmark's response to Iraq and Afghanistan have been resonable given the size of Denmark and the overall situation. I also do not think the situations are entirely comparable - WWII or the WP block on your doorstep compared to Afghanistan and Iraq.


mdiehl wrote:
My point is that if the USA had taken, throughout the cold war, the attitude that Continental Europe has taken in Iran and Iraq -- not our war, costs too much, too busy fiddledicking around guarding our borders from Canada or whatever -- none of that US support would have existed. That's why you keep ducking the basic questions. With an army of 10K regulars and 4K reserves, what the fuck was Denmark doing with its forces that it could muster barely a platoon for Afghanistan and under orders to avoid seeking engagement?


Denmark have deployed battalion size units to both Iraq and Afghanistan. They have in Afghanistan been used in the most dangerous part of the country, the south. Last time I checked their loss ratio were greater than the troops of any other NATO/ISAF etc force deployed to Afghanistan.


mdiehl wrote:
Your rebuttal has been "although the force was available it cost too much to deploy, was the wrong war, was not Denmark's war, was not in the right place, was not in the right time." Yours is a *typical* continental European attitude towards cooperation even in mutual defense treaties. There is always a demand to help you. There will always be an excuse for being unavailable when you're needed.


My take is more that the Danish response to Iraq and Afghanistan has been resonable given the size of Denmark, the nature of the threat etc. I also think most of your countrymen agree with me. ;)

mdiehl wrote:
The US did that in 1918.


Another case of total war that compares badly to Iraq/A-stan. The US inducted 3 million men, and sent about 1 million overseas.

mdiehl wrote:
Well, basically you are confessing that there will never be a "good reason" to adequately support the USA, because the USA will never be under threat of foreign occupation by anyone.


I think it is highly unlikely that foreign armies will ever "water their horeses in the Ohio river", but our take on "adequately" differs. I think Denmarks contribution to Iraq/A-stan can be described as adequate for a nation with the history and size of Denmark.

mdiehl wrote:
So your reality is that the treaty will only obligate the US to respond to European wars, rather than Europeans responding in force to a war in which they otherwise would not be involved but in which the US is involved.


Defence of the NATO member states (the US or others) is one thing, expeditionary efforts in the third world is something else. I think it would be unrealistic for a nation to be expected to send it's entire military force (basically) to the Mid East/A-stan - unrealistic on several levels.


mdiehl wrote:
THAT is the fundamental and profound difference between the rest of Europe an the UK. It's not about size, it's about fundamental cultural values that at the heart demand that everyone else carry your shit, but that you all individually and collectively do nothing by way of reciprocity.


I see no fudamental or profound difference between the British or Danish response to Iraq or A-stan, other than you, md, taking a sh1t on the Danes for not being there in great enough numbers - though admittedly, you might be somewhat misinformed (deliberately or not) about Denmark.


Top
 Profile E-mail  
 
 Post subject: Re: Seal Team 6 in Somalia
PostPosted: Sat Jan 28, 2012 7:32 pm 
Offline
Sergeant Major
User avatar

Joined: Sat Oct 04, 2008 4:43 pm
Posts: 11477
Reputation points: 2348
NATO wrote:
talking about bizarre 8-)
we got a Swede Denmark-hater( ;) ) defending Denmark against the tortured fulminations and recriminations of an Arizona Yurope-hater..... :lol:
I do see a Swede wiping up the floor up conclusively with the tattered remnants of a provincial hater argument.
good thread.

I +repped wulfie for defending Denmark. This just shows how honest and modest we are. :mrgreen:

_________________
The trouble with the world is that the stupid are cocksure and the intelligent are full of doubt

Mit der Dummheit kämpfen selbst Götter vergebens.


Top
 Profile E-mail  
 
 Post subject: Re: Seal Team 6 in Somalia
PostPosted: Sun Jan 29, 2012 12:06 am 
Offline
Sergeant Major

Joined: Wed Dec 17, 2008 12:33 pm
Posts: 18575
Reputation points: 10126
Quote:
Defence of the NATO member states (the US or others) is one thing, expeditionary efforts in the third world is something else. I think it would be unrealistic for a nation to be expected to send it's entire military force (basically) to the Mid East/A-stan - unrealistic on several levels.


That is another way of saying that you expect the US to support you but you don't support the US. "Defense of NATO member states." Well, if your notion of defense does not include attacking the nation that housed the terrorists that attacked the United States, then it sounds like you mean "direct defense of their border."

As noted before, there will NEVER be a direct military assault on the US borders. Not going to happen. Atlantic on the East, Pacific on the west, Canadians to the north, and a general topography in Mexico and the Southwest that works against anyone in Mexico. "Never" might be too strong a word but for all practical purposes, under your rules of mobilization, the US will NEVER have a NATO ally other than the UK that will commit significant forces to any war unless that war is IN western Europe. In short, US defends Europe, Europe contributes nothing to wars in which the US is otherwise involved.

_________________
"Fuck the king." - Sandor Clegane

"And the story was whatever was the song what it was." - Dire Straits


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Seal Team 6 in Somalia
PostPosted: Sun Jan 29, 2012 12:13 am 
Offline
Sergeant Major

Joined: Wed Dec 17, 2008 12:33 pm
Posts: 18575
Reputation points: 10126
Quote:
a sh1t on the Danes for not being there in great enough numbers -


Which only demonstrates that you do not understand the argument at all. If Denmark is too small to contribute significant force, then the USA should not be it's military ally. If Denmark is large enough to have a significant force, but will not contribute it, then the USA should not be its military ally.

As you have tried on several occasions to both claim (as a rationalization for NOT doing much to assist the USA in A'stan and Iraq) and then disavow (because it's obvious that the WP was never and will never be landing on the Florida coast), continental European member states will never see a sufficient reason to assist the USA when the USA is engaged in a war. Not even when the USA is directly attacked. And despite the fact that the USA put orders of magnitude more men in the field to protect and defend continental European nations than any of those nations have put in A'stan or Iraq. Save one. The UK.

The UK is the only ally worth two shits that the United States has in Europe. I regret the anguish it causes you, but tough shit. If you want to count as an ally you all should have done more and better.

NATO is an utter waste of US economic, military and political capital.

_________________
"Fuck the king." - Sandor Clegane

"And the story was whatever was the song what it was." - Dire Straits


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Seal Team 6 in Somalia
PostPosted: Sun Jan 29, 2012 6:24 am 
Offline
Sergeant

Joined: Mon Feb 16, 2009 6:41 pm
Posts: 2198
Reputation points: 4170
mdiehl wrote:
That is another way of saying that you expect the US to support you but you don't support the US.


No, it is not. There has been Danish support for both Iraq and Afghanistan, both political and with troops on the ground. I think we can agree to that much. While I maintain that the Danish response has been resonable for a country with the size and history of Denmark you consider it to be worthless because it is too small.



mdiehl wrote:
"Defense of NATO member states." Well, if your notion of defense does not include attacking the nation that housed the terrorists that attacked the United States, then it sounds like you mean "direct defense of their border."


I think the situations differ. WWI/WWII/the Cold War contra Iraq/Aghanistan - and that it would be unrealistic to expect a small nation like Denmark to send 10k out of 10k troops needed to provide enough bulk for you to consider worthwhile. They were in Iraq too, and that's not where the terrorists that attacked the USA were hiding.


Top
 Profile E-mail  
 
 Post subject: Re: Seal Team 6 in Somalia
PostPosted: Sun Jan 29, 2012 6:33 am 
Offline
Sergeant

Joined: Mon Feb 16, 2009 6:41 pm
Posts: 2198
Reputation points: 4170
mdiehl wrote:
Which only demonstrates that you do not understand the argument at all. If Denmark is too small to contribute significant force, then the USA should not be it's military ally. If Denmark is large enough to have a significant force, but will not contribute it, then the USA should not be its military ally.


So, the question then is what would be considered a significant force..., is it not... ;)

Because of your heavily entrenched "UK only" attitude I seriously wonder if a nation like Denmark could ever field enough support be it political, military or otherwise to actually suit you, md. :D

And there's no need to worry about me, I feel no anguish over the question. 'Just doing my part to open ppl's eyes'... 8-)


Top
 Profile E-mail  
 
 Post subject: Re: Seal Team 6 in Somalia
PostPosted: Sun Jan 29, 2012 12:27 pm 
Offline
Sergeant Major

Joined: Wed Dec 17, 2008 12:33 pm
Posts: 18575
Reputation points: 10126
As I have already stated, in my view any nation that wants an alliance with the USA should be capable of fielding at least a full regiment plus supporting combined arms and logistics. In my view that'd be about 6,000 personnel, combat ready and combat willing. But that's the "entry level" price for nations like Denmark that, as you have pointed out, are small.

For Germany, France, Poland, Italy, it should be at least two combat ready divisions plus supporting elements.

But I can see ways for smaller nations to fill good alternative roles. Maintain, for example, a fleet of 50 flight ready C-130s, with all supporting ground personnel, and provide seagoing logistics to support that, and make that available for full logistical support and that's a real commitment.

But I would never want to hear "well, it's a 3rd world location, not our war, we're busy defending the homeland against the ghosts of past centuries" etc. At the first utterance of that I'd consider any military treaty to be void.

_________________
"Fuck the king." - Sandor Clegane

"And the story was whatever was the song what it was." - Dire Straits


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Seal Team 6 in Somalia
PostPosted: Sun Jan 29, 2012 6:23 pm 
Offline
Oppressive Tyrant and Enemy of Truth
User avatar

Joined: Mon Sep 15, 2008 6:06 pm
Posts: 14965
Location: under the porch
Reputation points: 10974
I take it that attitude extends to New Zealand, a commonwealth country that is so grateful to the United States for it's salvation during the Japanese unpleasantness that it refuses entry to American warships.

_________________
First, we must kill moose and squirrel


Top
 Profile E-mail  
 
 Post subject: Re: Seal Team 6 in Somalia
PostPosted: Sun Jan 29, 2012 6:30 pm 
Offline
Honorary Texan
User avatar

Joined: Wed Sep 17, 2008 2:11 am
Posts: 9256
Location: Hole-in-the-Wall
Reputation points: 6898
doggie wrote:
I take it that attitude extends to New Zealand, a commonwealth country that is so grateful to the United States for it's salvation during the Japanese unpleasantness that it refuses entry to American warships.

Another example of liberalism on display. I didn't know this. It's stinckingly outrageous.

Almost as outrageous as Barbara Boxer not letting the battleship Missouri into SF bay because it has "guns" on it.

Liberalism on display is there for all to witness. Yet these people get elected every year by the dependent class of perverts and screwballs.

NZ should somehow be made to suffer for this outrage.

_________________
Image


Top
 Profile  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 141 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1 ... 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15  Next

All times are UTC - 5 hours [ DST ]


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 6 guests


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
Powered by phpBB © 2000, 2002, 2005, 2007 phpBB Group