Fort Trump

[Benton]

(09-21-2018, 07:06 PM)bfine32 Wrote: To protect disruption of our financial interests through deterrence. 

American soldiers don't need to be used as logistics and protection for companies. Especially several companies ies that don't pay taxes.

[*bfine32*]

(09-21-2018, 10:44 PM)Benton Wrote: American soldiers don't need to be used as logistics and protection for companies. Especially several companies ies that don't pay taxes.

OK. That doesn't change the main reason we deploy Soldiers nationwide. Those "non-taxpaying" pay plenty of Americans that infuse money into our economy. 

[Dill]

(09-21-2018, 07:06 PM)bfine32 Wrote: So you're in the Putin wants us to put a base in Poland crowd? BTW, when did Poland drop out of NATO?

To protect disruption of our financial interests through deterrence. 

I'm in the Putin-wants-to-see-NATO-divided-and-weakened camp.

This base question is not an either/or, either Poland or Germany. We have 150+ bases in Germany. Without increasing the current military budget, it would be possible to reduce that number by ten or twelve or thirty, keep the rest AND put one in Poland--if it served the interests of the US and NATO.  Putin would not like that, for sure.

But shifting bases from our most reliable ally and linchpin of NATO (for reasons mentioned by Bzona) because today Merkle said something Trump doesn't like, and a U.S. leader complaining that Germany (and others) are playing the U.S. for a sucker, yes, Putin would like that.  Putin knows what history teaches of once powerful hegemons whose arrogance and unreliability drove away allies. Nothing about that on Fox or Facebook though, so Trump doesn't know.

What I don't see in your remarks is any recognition of NATO as an alliance of equals, each with its own national interests deserving of respect. They have so far worked together because the NATO alliance is a massive force multiplier for every member country, including the U.S.  Russia has NOTHING comparable working for it, nor does our other major competitor/adversary China, now rapidly ascending to world power status.

But NATO is maintained by diplomacy. NATO bashers often write as if US foreign policy is like the board game RISK with one or two players controlling blocks of countries, and the U.S. holds Europe so we can move our counters (bases in Germany or Poland) where we will, regardless of what all these countries together think. No relations between the counters of any importance or which need to be maintained.The whole dynamic field of interlocking treaties and carefully balanced trade agreements across Europe simply doesn't exist in your analyses, nor do the diplomatic norms which have heretofore maintained them. This absence is most clear when you imagine Obama naming a base in Poland "Ft Powell" would be ok to "Trump Haters," so resistance to Ft Trump has no other basis than that.

 Thus, in what you write I don't detect any clear conception of national interest, or strategic priorities beyond exploding liberal heads and snubbing allies with the most military and economic weight in favor of people who "want us." 

[*bfine32*]

(09-21-2018, 11:14 PM)Dill Wrote: I'm in the Putin-wants-to-see-NATO-divided-and-weakened camp.

This base question is not an either/or, either Poland or Germany. We have 150+ bases in Germany. Without increasing the current military budget, it would be possible to reduce that number by ten or twelve or thirty, keep the rest AND put one in Poland--if it served the interests of the US and NATO.  Putin would not like that, for sure.

But shifting bases from our most reliable ally and linchpin of NATO (for reasons mentioned by Bzona) because today Merkle said something Trump doesn't like, and a U.S. leader complaining that Germany (and others) are playing the U.S. for a sucker, yes, Putin would like that.  Putin knows what history teaches of once powerful hegemons whose arrogance and unreliability drove away allies. Nothing about that on Fox or Facebook though, so Trump doesn't know.

What I don't see in your remarks is any recognition of NATO as an alliance of equals, each with its own national interests deserving of respect. They have so far worked together because the NATO alliance is a massive force multiplier for every member country, including the U.S.  Russia has NOTHING comparable working for it, nor does our other major competitor/adversary China, now rapidly ascending to world power status.

But NATO is maintained by diplomacy. NATO bashers often write as if US foreign policy is like the board game RISK with one or two players controlling blocks of countries, and the U.S. holds Europe so we can move our counters (bases in Germany or Poland) where we will, regardless of what all these countries together think. No relations between the counters of any importance or which need to be maintained.The whole dynamic field of interlocking treaties and carefully balanced trade agreements across Europe simply doesn't exist in your analyses, nor do the diplomatic norms which have heretofore maintained them. This absence is most clear when you imagine Obama naming a base in Poland "Ft Powell" would be ok to "Trump Haters," so resistance to Ft Trump has no other basis than that.

 Thus, in what you write I don't detect any clear conception of national interest, or strategic priorities beyond exploding liberal heads and snubbing allies with the most military and economic weight in favor of people who "want us." 

Germany is not our most reliable ally. Where were they when we launched a coalition attack on Syria for gassing its own people?  And you never explained how putting a permanent base in Poland weakens NATO. As I asked earlier: When did Poland leave NATO? If the answer is never; then I see 0 logic in the assertion that placing a base in Poland wakens NATO. Are you sure you're just not making things up?

[Benton]

(09-21-2018, 01:27 PM)Dill Wrote: Yeah, because the reason for strategically placing military bases anywhere abroad is  . . . . what again?

(09-21-2018, 07:06 PM)bfine32 Wrote: To protect disruption of our financial interests through deterrence. 

(09-21-2018, 10:44 PM)Benton Wrote: American soldiers don't need to be used as logistics and protection for companies. Especially several companies ies that don't pay taxes.

(09-21-2018, 11:00 PM)bfine32 Wrote: OK. That doesn't change the main reason we deploy Soldiers nationwide. Those "non-taxpaying" pay plenty of Americans that infuse money into our economy. 

Well, that's not what we — including you — were discussing. My comments are in regard to bases in other countries, which aren't in the US.

[Nebuchadnezzar]

Every time I read the title of this thread I hear Tom Hanks saying "My name is Forest, Forest Trump".

[fredtoast]

(09-21-2018, 07:06 PM)bfine32 Wrote: So you're in the Putin wants us to put a base in Poland crowd? 

Yes.  In fact he wants it for the same reason you do.  It creates a bigger split between Americans.

The main reason you want it is to upset Democrats, and the main reason Putin wants it to see one group of Americans do something just to upset another group of Americans.

[*Nately120*]

(09-24-2018, 12:34 PM)fredtoast Wrote: Yes.  In fact he wants it for the same reason you do.  It creates a bigger split between Americans.

The main reason you want it is to upset Democrats, and the main reason Putin wants it to see one group of Americans do something just to upset another group of Americans.

You know the old saying..."divided we stand, together we fall" or something.

[*bfine32*]

(09-24-2018, 12:34 PM)fredtoast Wrote: Yes.  In fact he wants it for the same reason you do.  It creates a bigger split between Americans.

The main reason you want it is to upset Democrats, and the main reason Putin wants it to see one group of Americans do something just to upset another group of Americans.

I've said numerous times: I've wanted this long before Trump even took office. I have advocated relocating our bases in Germany to various locations. Dems busting a spring is just a bonus.

Now you have to make up your mind and talk out of only one side of your mouth. Does Putin want us to do this or not?  

[Dill]

(09-21-2018, 11:20 PM)bfine32 Wrote: Germany is not our most reliable ally. Where were they when we launched a coalition attack on Syria for gassing its own people? 

Again we have different standards for "reliable." Germany has been a steady backer of US policy in the UN and Europe since 1955. Your complaint is really about the autonomy of allies like Germany; its refusal to blindly follow any rash military adventure the U.S. undertakes. That unstable, authoritarian tending Poland suddenly "likes" us and would manipulate our President into a bilateral agreement, an end run around NATO, make it more a reliable Yes-man than preferred ally.

Also, Germany, like other NATO allies such as Iceland and Denmark, but unlike France, has neither a historical interest nor assets in the Middle East.  NATO signatories are not obligated to attack every other country the U.S. attacks. Further, any exercise of German military power beyond its borders is an international as well as domestic concern. Merkel would have to overcome objections from other European nations and her own voters, who have long memories and do not want to "make Germany great again."

AND YET, Germany is still considering helping the US punish Syria with jet strikes, should it use poison gas again--though they could not so this immediately, this afternoon, on a Trump whim. 

(09-21-2018, 11:20 PM)bfine32 Wrote: And you never explained how putting a permanent base in Poland weakens NATO. As I asked earlier: When did Poland leave NATO? If the answer is never; then I see 0 logic in the assertion that placing a base in Poland wakens NATO. Are you sure you're just not making things up?

Of course I did.  I set forth two different circumstances in which a US base is put in Poland. One which does not necessaryily weaken NATO, and one which does.

Regarding the last set of circumstances, I also said there was something that still does not exist in your analyses, something INVISIBLE to you--namely the network of NATO alliances which has to be maintained through diplomacy because it operates through CONSENSUS of civilian and military leaders of each member nation.

Italy cannot just unilaterally, or bilaterally, decide to station troops in Lativa.  If the US and Poland make a bi lateral decision to put a permanent base in Poland-- without going through the NATO command structure for approval--they would be operating outside NATO and disrupting a number of existing policies, including an agreement with Russia NOT to put any more permanent bases closer to Russia.  

Without acknowledging my points regarding this constraining network of agreements maintained by diplomacy, you continue the red herring: "When did Poland leave NATO"--as if that were the only thing that could weaken an alliance based upon CONSENSUS maintained through DIPLOMACY.  So naturally you see "0 logic" in an argument which assumes recognition of treaty agreements arrived at and maintained by consensus, and argues that disrupting agreements, process, and trust could weaken NATO.  You don't see anything to be weakened. Just countries who "like" us or don't. Last time you checked, Poland was still a NATO member, so no problem if the most powerful NATO member ignores the others to forge its own European policy--and this after months of demeaning their commitment and contribution to the most successful alliance in history.

To repeat: in what you write I don't detect any clear conception of national interest, or strategic priorities beyond exploding liberal heads and snubbing allies with the most military and economic weight in favor of people who "want us." 

[Dill]

(09-21-2018, 11:00 PM)bfine32 Wrote: OK. That doesn't change the main reason we deploy Soldiers nationwide. Those "non-taxpaying" pay plenty of Americans that infuse money into our economy. 

Sounds like you are talking about workers who make money for the corporations, which then pay them with that money, so the workers also pay taxes the corporations don't have to. 

[Dill]

(09-18-2018, 08:40 PM)Bengalzona Wrote: Interesting.

Putin wouldn't like it. But I don't think he would be overly concerned with a small U.S. presence there.

As for Germany, I could see Trump trying to sell a small presence in Poland for a massive draw-down in Germany for sheer political or spite reasons (he seems entirely unconcerned with doing things for national defense considerations). And there may be some places we could cut troop levels in Germany. But Germany is our European logistical hub, especially around Ramstein A.F.B. That won't be changing anytime in the near future.

Actually, I think Putin would be quite concerned if NATO put a PERMANENT US base in Poland. Clinton signed an agreement with Yeltsin promising not put any US troops closer to Russia on a permanent basis.  He would be less concerned, or even happy, if Trump snubbed NATO and his own Joint Chiefs to do it. It is not clear whether such a base would be "insurance" or more an incentive to Russian mischief.

Excellent point about the logistical hub, located in central Europe. We are already down to about 30,000 troops in Germany (compared to 500,000 when I lived there).  Also, were something to happen in Europe and we need to plant 100,000+ troops there tout suite, we'd need facilities and bases in place to absorb them. Germany, Italy and Great Britain are all critical to the US ability to project power--but Germany especially.

[*michaelsean*]

(09-24-2018, 12:34 PM)fredtoast Wrote: Yes.  In fact he wants it for the same reason you do.  It creates a bigger split between Americans.

The main reason you want it is to upset Democrats, and the main reason Putin wants it to see one group of Americans do something just to upset another group of Americans.

I think he was referring to if they named it Fort Trump.