America can be a superpower or a welfare state, but not both.

[Betonov]

Originally Posted by Skybird

Turkey.

Much of Greece was once conquered and occupied by the Ottomans. The hostility of the Greeks over Turkey goes back to that time. Turkey's hostility in return goes back to the fact that they had lost Greece again.

That much I understand. But a modern equipped infantry squad, trained in hit&run tactics would make short work of a tank unit in that hilly terrain. And those islands, unless all their tanks are amphibius. Those tanks are more likely to be a show of force

[Stealth Hunter]

Originally Posted by Armistead

It seems with the cost of military comes the desire to constantly use it. Bush ran against Clinton's nation building and now we nation build through wars and constantly police the world. We're rebuilding infrastructure in other nations why ours crumbles. It seems the US must always pay the price. Wars alone cost us over a trillion. Let's face it, much profit to be made from war.

You are well-spoken in highlighting the issues we face lol. What should have been recognized and asked about this whole "World Police" ideology a long time ago is... how the hell can any nation expect to solve the various problems of other nations when it can't even solve its own beforehand?

[mookiemookie]

Originally Posted by Armistead

It seems with the cost of military comes the desire to constantly use it. Bush ran against Clinton's nation building and now we nation build through wars and constantly police the world. We're rebuilding infrastructure in other nations why ours crumbles. It seems the US must always pay the price. Wars alone cost us over a trillion. Let's face it, much profit to be made from war.

The cold war is over. Many of the platforms we have today give us very little bang for the buck. We spend more than the next five nations combined and to many that's not enough.

We could easily shut down over 100 cold war military bases in Europe.

No doubt the defense budget isn't gonna break us, but it must be on the table. My concern is constant wars and conflicts, why can't we mind our business. Our border is a warzone, let's protect it first.

The bigger welfare state is the bail outs of corporations that stopped working for americans long ago.

How many times have our leaders told us the latest military misadventure "isn't about nation building" as we go on to try to build a nation amenable to our interests.

[Oberon]

Quite frankly, and I don't say this in a 'OMFG I'm from the UK and therefore must be the US's best buddy' but the US is welcome to keep their bases running over here, for one thing it brings in money for us from US airmen shopping in local places. For another it gives the US a nice refueling point without having to put up tankers, or indeed gives them somewhere to base the tankers (Mildenhall springs to mind) and it's nice to see US kit in the skies from time to time. Yes, the UK is very much riding on the coat-tails of the US military, primarily because we've lost most of ours. It's not a situation I'm exactly happy with, but at the same time it's nice to know that someone has our back until our idiots have sorted themselves out.
However, if the US decided to cut back again on USAFE bases then I'd fully understand and support their decision, it is after all their military.

I do ponder, if perhaps the US, and other nations, need to do a hard reset on their finances, start a new peg system for it, stop any inflation and so forth. It's a tricky situation, and I really don't understand finances enough to be assertive on the subject, but it's not getting any better and whether this is due to a 'welfare state' or high military spending I do not know, but I think that both the US and other nations are fast approaching the point where a drastic measure is called for.

[Onkel Neal]

Originally Posted by Oberon

Quite frankly, and I don't say this in a 'OMFG I'm from the UK and therefore must be the US's best buddy' but the US is welcome to keep their bases running over here, for one thing it brings in money for us from US airmen shopping in local places. For another it gives the US a nice refueling point without having to put up tankers, or indeed gives them somewhere to base the tankers (Mildenhall springs to mind) and it's nice to see US kit in the skies from time to time. Yes, the UK is very much riding on the coat-tails of the US military, primarily because we've lost most of ours. It's not a situation I'm exactly happy with, but at the same time it's nice to know that someone has our back until our idiots have sorted themselves out.

The UK & France earned their ride. They stood against the Nazis and Russians when everyone else watched. So I don't mean anything derogatory when I say you "are riding our security coattails", I'm just outlining one of the factors of our extremely high defense budget. Above all else, the US's transition from an isolationist power to a "world policeman" has been one hell of a success in keeping Western powers from re-engaging in world war.

[Jimbuna]

Originally Posted by Oberon

Quite frankly, and I don't say this in a 'OMFG I'm from the UK and therefore must be the US's best buddy' but the US is welcome to keep their bases running over here, for one thing it brings in money for us from US airmen shopping in local places. For another it gives the US a nice refueling point without having to put up tankers, or indeed gives them somewhere to base the tankers (Mildenhall springs to mind) and it's nice to see US kit in the skies from time to time. Yes, the UK is very much riding on the coat-tails of the US military, primarily because we've lost most of ours. It's not a situation I'm exactly happy with, but at the same time it's nice to know that someone has our back until our idiots have sorted themselves out.
However, if the US decided to cut back again on USAFE bases then I'd fully understand and support their decision, it is after all their military.

I do ponder, if perhaps the US, and other nations, need to do a hard reset on their finances, start a new peg system for it, stop any inflation and so forth. It's a tricky situation, and I really don't understand finances enough to be assertive on the subject, but it's not getting any better and whether this is due to a 'welfare state' or high military spending I do not know, but I think that both the US and other nations are fast approaching the point where a drastic measure is called for.

Aye that (and in particular the first paragraph)

[AVGWarhawk]

Originally Posted by Armistead

It seems with the cost of military comes the desire to constantly use it. Bush ran against Clinton's nation building and now we nation build through wars and constantly police the world. We're rebuilding infrastructure in other nations why ours crumbles. It seems the US must always pay the price. Wars alone cost us over a trillion. Let's face it, much profit to be made from war.

The cold war is over. Many of the platforms we have today give us very little bang for the buck. We spend more than the next five nations combined and to many that's not enough.

We could easily shut down over 100 cold war military bases in Europe.

No doubt the defense budget isn't gonna break us, but it must be on the table. My concern is constant wars and conflicts, why can't we mind our business. Our border is a warzone, let's protect it first.

The bigger welfare state is the bail outs of corporations that stopped working for americans long ago.

In a nutshell, war is a business. The defense industry is just that, a industry. Also, the US can not ignore what is transpiring on the other side of the world. These activites can and do directly affect the US physically or monetarily. These cold war bases have changed rolls in so much as the US is really the 'world police.' As some point out, these bases provide an economy for surrounding cities. These bases are forward fueling stops, etc. The US has many international interests for many reasons.

[August]

Originally Posted by Neal Stevens

...the US's transition from an isolationist power to a "world policeman" has been one hell of a success in keeping Western powers from re-engaging in world war.

Darn good point. My only question is whether we can continue to afford doing this.

[Jimbuna]

Originally Posted by August

Darn good point. My only question is whether we can continue to afford doing this.

I suspect...eventually 'NO' but what worries me is who will eventually take over the role.

China?

[Skybird]

Originally Posted by Betonov

That much I understand. But a modern equipped infantry squad, trained in hit&run tactics would make short work of a tank unit in that hilly terrain. And those islands, unless all their tanks are amphibius. Those tanks are more likely to be a show of force

The Greeks definitely are irrational over their armed forces. Calculating the personell strength versus their population size, they operate the - by far - biggest army in Europe, and lastz year they reported to the UN's weapon sregister a tank force of over 1600, half of which are Lepard-1 and Leopard-2.

BUT:

While making deals likwe crazy with the Germans - and owing enormous sums to the German weapon producers, they tried tzo reduce the costs by sparing - ammunition. The 3-4 hundred tanks of the latest models of the Leopard fleet are reported to be toothless, and having no grenades. They cannot shoot with anything! Other parts of their tank fleet is said to be running extremely short on ammunition, or also not having any ammunition at all.

However, the thunder run in Bagdhad and the Israelis' experiences have lead to a different definition of tanks in urban or cluttered environments. To have tanks in that geography of theirs maybe is not as pointless as yoiu think. In defensive positions, hull-down, with the ultra-hard turrets of the latest Leopards and assumed air superiority, such positions could be a showstopper for a Turkish invasion.

But hell, tanks should have a bite, really!

Buying tanks without ammo... boy! Tells you a bit on how crazy Greek policy-making is - not just since the currency drama.

P.S. All info on those empty tanks from German, Austrian and Swiss newspapers last year.

[mookiemookie]

Originally Posted by jimbuna

I suspect...eventually 'NO' but what worries me is who will eventually take over the role.

China?

If they want to be seen as a legitimate superpower, they're going to have to start acting in that capacity.

[Jimbuna]

Originally Posted by mookiemookie

If they want to be seen as a legitimate superpower, they're going to have to start acting in that capacity.

Which I jonestly reckon would be the least of their concerns....and that is another point to worry about.

[Jimbuna]

Oh how quaint...mark me up another post!!

[Gerald]

[Armistead]

Originally Posted by Neal Stevens

The UK & France earned their ride. They stood against the Nazis and Russians when everyone else watched. So I don't mean anything derogatory when I say you "are riding our security coattails", I'm just outlining one of the factors of our extremely high defense budget. Above all else, the US's transition from an isolationist power to a "world policeman" has been one hell of a success in keeping Western powers from re-engaging in world war.

I can hardly see a connection that us being the world police has kept us from engaging in another world war, nor do I see the dynamics of it. If anything it seems we're setting the stage for further conflict and weakening our economic power why the future powers to be gain strength.

We spend over 100 billion is Afganistan every year, yet we can't spend the money to rebuild towns torn up by recent storms. We're going broke rebuilding third world nations that still show us no favor and will go back to as they were when we leave..if we ever leave. The mid east is turning against our placed dictators and probably will go more radical.