US troops are not in Germany to protect Germany.
-
@Strandjunker Oh, don't worry: The Germans don't grasp it either. In the news they had quite a large bullshit bingo why this is bad for Germany (something about economy, maintaining workplaces, other foo).
Shifting the view to "having soldier from someone who might be your enemy tomorrow already in your land" is way to complex to get. They really do believe in dangers to "the economy"....
️@jesterchen @Strandjunker Eh, spare us a little faith if you could, please. We're working on getting him out of play. Even under a worst case scenario though we're talking at least a decade to weaponize our international assets in such a way to become an actual threat. You can afford to give us a little working room to see if we can turn the corner here.
-
@starraven @Strandjunker Only the ones paying attention to russia. Maybe some of the far right with links back to Moscow might share that position. But that's about it.
-
@rupert We will have to disagree about that. Removing the troops helps to detach Europe from the American war machine after 80 years. It's a historic step forward.
@2legged @rupert @Strandjunker You wont be given any such luxury of choice when the russian war machine moves in to take it's place. Go ask Poland. They remember, even if you do not. That's why they work so furiously to make up for lost defensive time. Putins ambitions are specific. Anything he can't have or doesn't want to own in Europe he wants to leave in ashes & flames. Russian resentments are deeply entrenched across many generations. Only a fool opens his/her door to it.
-
US troops are not in Germany to protect Germany. They’re there because the US needs bases to conduct operations beyond the North American continent. If Trump withdraws them, he will harm the United States, not Germany.
It’s absurd how many Americans fail to grasp this.
@Strandjunker That doesn't harm the United States. It harms the regime that controls the US, and I don't just mean the current one. But eliminating the US military capability to perform "operations" benefits us greatly.
-
@kdwarn @Strandjunker Yes, it will. Our entire economy is lynchpinned by our superpower status. The value of the dollar internationally tanking would impact every American.
Most ESPECIALLY the lower & middle class. Upper class has their bets hedged in multiple fiat currencies. The rest of us? Not so much. The depression would seem downright bright & prosperous by comparison.@Beggarmidas feels like quite the reach to say the value of the U.S. dollar would tank if U.S. troops are removed from Germany.
-
US troops are not in Germany to protect Germany. They’re there because the US needs bases to conduct operations beyond the North American continent. If Trump withdraws them, he will harm the United States, not Germany.
It’s absurd how many Americans fail to grasp this.
This shit will continue until 47 is 86d.
He is not playing with a full deck.
And all of this demonstrates that small deck energy.
-
@Beggarmidas feels like quite the reach to say the value of the U.S. dollar would tank if U.S. troops are removed from Germany.
@kdwarn That aione woudnt do it of course. That was a more general statement. Loss of US pre-eminence is what our economy now revolves around. It's why any isolationist movement here in the USA is essentially proposing economic suicide by pursuit of such folly. Whether they know or understand it or not.
-
@thegarbagebird @dissident @Strandjunker
An unforced error by the US that any adversary paying attention would -- and is -- taking advantage of. -
@Beggarmidas feels like quite the reach to say the value of the U.S. dollar would tank if U.S. troops are removed from Germany.
@kdwarn It was a post war shifting that basically set it in play. As the only industrial power left standing after the wars devastation defacto allowed the weight of world fiscal power to tilt towards america. Though i'm sure there were cheerleaders here that facilitated it, I don't think it started as a cohesive plan. Just became a side effect of the post war climate, the marshal plan & ensuing cold war positioning. However it started, we're married to it now
-
@kdwarn It was a post war shifting that basically set it in play. As the only industrial power left standing after the wars devastation defacto allowed the weight of world fiscal power to tilt towards america. Though i'm sure there were cheerleaders here that facilitated it, I don't think it started as a cohesive plan. Just became a side effect of the post war climate, the marshal plan & ensuing cold war positioning. However it started, we're married to it now
@Beggarmidas I think there's quite the difference between isolationism and reducing the number of U.S. troops and bases across the globe. I'd argue that the world, and the average U.S. person, would be far better without U.S. imperialism. Besides that, should the value of the U.S. dollar decrease, it would mean fewer imports and more exports, which would be a good thing.
-
@Beggarmidas I think there's quite the difference between isolationism and reducing the number of U.S. troops and bases across the globe. I'd argue that the world, and the average U.S. person, would be far better without U.S. imperialism. Besides that, should the value of the U.S. dollar decrease, it would mean fewer imports and more exports, which would be a good thing.
@kdwarn Also...Are you aware of how imperialism actually worked? I suggest a full review & comparison before jumping to such a conclusion. That whole 'imperialist' tag was an outcropping of soviet propaganda that cemented itself in the western mindset as a sort of proto-meme. The USA was in most ways a direct opposite of imperialism. The marshall plan would have never have taken place were it true. There were some bad actor companies that did bad shit despite it, but not as a matter of US policy
-
@kdwarn Also...Are you aware of how imperialism actually worked? I suggest a full review & comparison before jumping to such a conclusion. That whole 'imperialist' tag was an outcropping of soviet propaganda that cemented itself in the western mindset as a sort of proto-meme. The USA was in most ways a direct opposite of imperialism. The marshall plan would have never have taken place were it true. There were some bad actor companies that did bad shit despite it, but not as a matter of US policy
@Beggarmidas overthrowing democratically elected governments and sabotaging popular movements in the interest of US corporations. That’s US policy and I feel it’s quite right to label that imperialism. Maybe neo-imperialism, but whatever I’m not really concerned about the semantics. I just have no interest in the US military murdering people around the world in the name of capitalism.
-
@Beggarmidas I think there's quite the difference between isolationism and reducing the number of U.S. troops and bases across the globe. I'd argue that the world, and the average U.S. person, would be far better without U.S. imperialism. Besides that, should the value of the U.S. dollar decrease, it would mean fewer imports and more exports, which would be a good thing.
@kdwarn Eh, with one caveat. The USA did pursue some imperialist practices pre world war one, but we'd largely ended those practices by 1908. (Might have been 1912. Forgive my aging memory) It was more of a 'we did it because everyone was doing it' sort of geopolitical thing. EG the international 'norm' Once we'd decided we were going to encourage/endorse ending of colonialism practices globally we abandoned those overtones at the policy level.
-
US troops are not in Germany to protect Germany. They’re there because the US needs bases to conduct operations beyond the North American continent. If Trump withdraws them, he will harm the United States, not Germany.
It’s absurd how many Americans fail to grasp this.
@Strandjunker If you're ever wondering about Trump's motives, just ask yourself "what would Putin do?". But currently Russia can't even beat Ukraine, and they'd be no match for Europe, with or without the U.S. #agent_krasnov
-
US troops are not in Germany to protect Germany. They’re there because the US needs bases to conduct operations beyond the North American continent. If Trump withdraws them, he will harm the United States, not Germany.
It’s absurd how many Americans fail to grasp this.
That might be THE logistics base to support operations in the mid-East if Al Udeid is all shot to Hell.
-
@kdwarn Eh, with one caveat. The USA did pursue some imperialist practices pre world war one, but we'd largely ended those practices by 1908. (Might have been 1912. Forgive my aging memory) It was more of a 'we did it because everyone was doing it' sort of geopolitical thing. EG the international 'norm' Once we'd decided we were going to encourage/endorse ending of colonialism practices globally we abandoned those overtones at the policy level.
@Beggarmidas Central and South America in the 1900s? Various African countries?
-
US troops are not in Germany to protect Germany. They’re there because the US needs bases to conduct operations beyond the North American continent. If Trump withdraws them, he will harm the United States, not Germany.
It’s absurd how many Americans fail to grasp this.
-
US troops are not in Germany to protect Germany. They’re there because the US needs bases to conduct operations beyond the North American continent. If Trump withdraws them, he will harm the United States, not Germany.
It’s absurd how many Americans fail to grasp this.
Only stupid voters can elect and reelect a stupid president.
-
US troops are not in Germany to protect Germany. They’re there because the US needs bases to conduct operations beyond the North American continent. If Trump withdraws them, he will harm the United States, not Germany.
It’s absurd how many Americans fail to grasp this.
@Strandjunker Whoa whoa whoa....
You're saying the USA needs allies to help keep them safe?!?!?!eleven?!?!!!?
