When has our allies come to the US defense?

And yeah, yeah there was that article 5 usage during Bush's misguided war in Afghanistan, but that lone exception aside. When? I can't think of a single time. Do we have the kind of free trade agreements we want? Not really, both Europe and Asia have protectionist markets, meanwhile we have to scratch and claw for better agreements with both of them.


So to reiterate: Are we getting the bang for our buck? Because we are or were the 'exceptional' country, that has been for the better part of the last 40-50 years an excuse where to fulfill the old adage: European Union: Jump, US: How deep do we plunge down?

I do not take an antagonistic view to our allies, I take a pragmatic one. This is a one sided relationship. Both sides acknowledge it's one sided. Think about the Afghanistan withdrawal. They were upset, not with the withdrawal but with how their own forces were exposed, and then B: We had to take this influx of migrant workers because we 'owed them something' or such nonsense. To save them from the Taliban.

I can't think of a single time, save for that article 5 example where the European Union or Asia said: Let's throw the US a bone. At this point, it's clear we don't benefit from the relationship. And the excuse that was recently given for foreign aid spending: That it maintains peace, doesn't hold true any longer given the Central American migration crisis.

So we're giving them money, ostensibly to improve their situation but not only has their situation NOT improved but they are worsening conditions with us and on the grounds directly in America.

I think it's well established that 'who we are' does things, not because it works[because it clearly doesn't] but it's because it's what they're used to! This has to be their singular domestic and foreign policy. They cannot envision a different way of governance. And since they can't and it's all we ever lived, we can't either so we think it is some norm instead of just plain incompetence.

 

9/11 is one.

We have trade agreements where it is far easier for us to ship to them and vice versa. If you think the USMCA is a pure free trade agreement, think again. It is 95% based on NAFTA with some minor adjustments with car manufacturers, and that is about it. A lot of hype by Trump, but very little change.

The withdrawal from Afghanistan was based on the agreement that Trump made with the Taliban. He left out the Afghan government, the legitimate government, from the talks. This was the demand by the Taliban, and Trump acquiesced. And the only reason why Trump did this was to put a check on something he promised in 2016 and did not think things through. But none the less, if you read the agreement and not think or care who was president then, it was a bad peace treaty with the Taliban. And yes, Biden Admin made some mistakes in the withdrawal, but the stage was set by Trump and that damn agreement that should have never seen the light of day.

Our allies are there based on our strategic interests. All defense arrangements are based on that through mutual cooperation. We don't have that many troops in Europe anymore. In fact, we have more troops stationed in SE Asia now than we do all of Europe, among other things.

For asian countries, they don't have protectionist polices that you speak of, except countries like China to some degree. But again, if you raise tariffs on Chinese goods here, China will do the same. And in fact, Trump did this and the WTO in some cases found no evidence to justify the tariff increases.

So this is definitely a thread fail from the very start.

 

This isn't about the withdrawal in of itself, but rather the European reaction to the withdrawal. But that excuse by the Biden Administration doesn't totally fly, inside of the agreement, there were stipulations that if the conditions on the ground weren't ideal, the US could withdraw from the agreement. Not only was that there in writing, but it was backed by numerous officials within the Trump government, including Trump himself.

Biden and Biden alone is solely responsible for Afghanistan. But to not get off track, let's discuss the reality of the trade situation.

https://www.census.gov/foreign-trade/balance/c0004.html

We import{take things in} more than we send out. In the global economic field, our stuff doesn't reach their markets because of the protectionism. This has gone on, long before Trump BTW.

And as far as the Chinese tariffs are concerned, I do agree they're ineffective, it would be much more effective to reduce the amount of trade until we reach an equilibrium. But given that the WTO allowed China in in the first place, the WTO doesn't have legitimacy on the justification of American trade policy. Only the American Government may have that legitimacy.

 

They're doing that now in Ukraine.. why do you ask?

 

Ukraine is us flowing American weapons and ammunition into that region of the world. Even with the EU spending in that area, it's mostly in the hospitalization area. Make no mistake, we're carrying the bulk of the fight in the European region. For the third time in as many instances.

 

I guess when we declare ourselves the greatest nation in the world and when we boast about our military being the most powerful we don't give the impression that we need the assistance of anyone.

 

Yeah. They're putting the DEAD. It's only fair that we provide the weapons to help stop expansionist dictators.

No we're not! That's ridiculous. Ukraine is!

 

The reason America is superpower is because of our Allies. Military might is just a fraction of what makes America superpower. It is the economic alliance, it is diplomatic alliance, trading alliance, our shared value with our allies make America the superpower.

 

You think “ hospitalization” is not part of a warfare ?

 

I have no qualms against humanitarian aid{though for political points, I obviously left myself vulnerable to attack by saying it that way]. But to me, if the qualm with Russia is so significant as to be antagonistic for both sides, then the Europeans should have as much military aid/readiness as they have been valiant in the humanitarian aid.

In other words, it should be Europe giving Russia a black eye here, but instead we're the ones doing it. And I wholly disagree that us being a military power makes us a super power{in the same breath as other fallen superpowers} but rather, our economic engine should be the catapult to American Success.

Unfortunately, when you put billions and trillions into the military, 'soft' features such as our domestic infrastructure and growth, tend to lag behind.

 

I disagree. History has taught us that we are better off being the strongest military power in the world. Even if that means that we are expected to pull most of the weight of defending democracies. We WANT other countries to not feel the need to build up their military. Because anybody who knows anything about history understands that alliances shift all the time. It{s better than they rely on us than we relying on them.

BTW, your posts appear to ignore the fact that the world's balance of power is on the line in Ukraine. That and the fact that Ukraine is the one doing the fighting and suffering all the dead. Us throwing money at it is nowhere near the sacrifice they are making to defend US.

 

Are they defending us though? Not to deny Russia's antagonism, but Russia currently has her eyes squarely in her own backyard. She's in no present position to threaten the United States. Now, she and Europe are at odds, as they've been over the last century but that is not and should not be our problem.

And it wasn't our problem until primarily WWI and WWII. And then after WWII, we adopted the current strategy because and this is my view: We were fortunate and lucky to win in WWII. Top echelon brass saw it and see it as a pattern of success. I see it as something that could've easily gone the other way. If our adversaries were more prepared, if they weren't bogged down as much as they were. Entering a massive war like that has huge risks, we were just fortunate to come out the other end twice.

Likewise, the manner in which we fought the cold war which created the muhajeeden, which led to modern problems[For those who scream about Trump, does Trump come to power without the fear and tension that came from radical terrorism and our inability for the most part to keep it out of our backyard?]

Sometimes it's better to be lucky than good, and America had been very lucky. Relying on that luck resulted in mistakes that would not have been made, if we were more prudent on American success.

Now, as to Europe's being a historic and present bed of warfare. It isn't so much the alliances or even the military. Those countries downright hate each other. It's a powderkeg of issues that the EU currently keeps under wraps to a degree, but then it just festers in each individual country. In many ways, Europe and the Middle East shares more similarities than we care to admit. Both are tribalistic by nature, the tribes have a deep rivalry that they would use military power over. Just like the ME, Europe has long wanted an alliance. The big difference is that whereas the ME had the Ottoman Empire, Europe had like several fractured Empires.

All of this to say, the US cannot be the glue that binds Europe together. At least, not without the just compensation that would warrant such a commitment. And in my view, we have not gotten that just compensation. It was the post-WW2/cold war peace, but we saw how that was broken via the Russian Aggression.

The naivete is, presuming it's just Russia that can be a powderkeg. It's a conflict, not someone beating themselves up. Both sides hate each other's guts.

We Americans need a stake in the game, in order to morally let alone economically justify our participation. So either these countries give us the free trade access[economic] that acts as compensation, or since we're protecting the entire thing we should be allowed to join the European Union while maintaining American independence.


A eurodollar that would open both economies would do wonders for both, but especially ours. Such a massive economic alliance would be the kind of boost we need and hadn't had since the .com bubble. Now there's some differences in foods, regulations, etc that have been a burden but we can come to agreements on those to meet in the middle.

 

Yes! 100% Whether that is coincidental or not, is a whole different thing. But they are.

History is our friend. Czechoslovakia, Austria, Poland... that was GERMANY's backyard in the 1930s. And nobody did much to stop them. So if it's our job to help another country stop them before they threaten us, so be it. Distances are much "shorter" today than they were in the 1930s.

Near sightedness has never been a good ally in dealing with expansionist dictators.

We were! And we should not leave this kind of things to "luck" in the future.

Somebody has to stop expansionist dictators before they go too far. And, as I said before, I DO see an advantage to that being US. If WE are the most powerful military force, that means nobody else is.

Why not? If it benefits us, we should. We need to do what benefits US. If that benefits others, so be it.

Ok. So what you're proposing is that they pay us. You should have started there. Ukraine has payed more than their share in human lives. If we start talking about "compensation" we're going to owe them more than they owe us for a few guns and airplanes.

My point is that, compensation or not, we are NOT doing this for Ukraine, or Europe or... anybody. We are doing it for OURSELVES. We do not want expansionist dictators to succeed. And right now, there are two countries that are itching to see if they can get away with grabbing foreign countries. If they manage to annex one, and nobody stops them, what keeps them from going after others?

 

Yeah, I thought it funny Biden is working with Saudi Arabia on an agreement that we will agree to defend each other. Great agreement - for Saudi Arabia because they are secure in knowing that we will help defend them when they have no intention of actually helping to defend us.

 

Here is the misunderstanding. You think Military handwear and human resources are the only thing needed in warfare. That is a few hundred years old mindset. In today’s warfare, most of the battle are fought outside the battle field.


Here is one of those fights outside the battel filed.



Both exports and imports have dropped considerably below the level prior to the invasion. Seasonally adjusted values show that Russia’s share in extra-EU imports fell from 9.6% in February 2022 to 1.7% in June 2023, while the share of extra-EU exports fell from 3.8 % to 1.4% in the same period.


Europe is doing everything to fight this war. Here is the EU support to Ukraine



If you look into Baltic countries, they are giving even more ( not my amount but per GDP)


Tallinn contributes 1.5% of its GDP towards helping Kyiv. Riga and Vilnius follow closely by donating 1.3% and 1.2% of their GDP.


You talk about “soft” investment in infrastructure. I know you are not republican , but do you remember when was the last time Republican Administration invested in infrastructure? In 2009 when Obama passed “American Recovery and reinvestment Act” , not a single GOP voted for it. Last year “ build back better”, not a single House GOP voted for the bill. Forget about Democratic infrastructure bill, Trump had “infrastructure week” for his entire 4 years and didn’t pass anything. Republican like talking about “ why not spend money at home” when they argue with DEMS about foreign aid, but when it comes to vote for “ spending money at home” 90% GOP don’t support. Hell.. GOP don’t even support spending money when hurricane or other natural disaster hit a state. Marco Rubio voted against Aid package for FL last year after the Hurricane because it was good politics.

 

So Washington is officially endorsing that atrocity in Yemen? This is what I'm talking about, even HRC spoke about it in her book Hard Choices[though I suspect she still would've made the choice, had she been president] like you point out, this is only favorable for the Saudis to have the military backing of the United States.

There's nothing the Saudis can do to 'assist' us, nor are they politically motivated to do so. It puts a mark on the whole 'democracy' thing while also embroiling us into another commitment, hurray!

 

My nation came to America's aid in Korea, Vietnam, two Gulf Wars, Afghanistan & Syria. If Panama & Grenada had been closer to home we probably would have showed up there. I get that its virtually a crime for right wing Americans to possess knowledge about other nations, but stuff like this is just an insult to those of us who support the US alliance.

I'm also pretty sure other nations came to America's aid in Korea, Vietnam, both Gulf Wars & Afghanistan.

In Korea Britain, France, Canada, Turkey, The Philippines, New Zealand, Thailand, Ethiopia, Greece, Colombia, Belgium, South Africa, Australia, The Netherlands and Luxembourg all showed up (and before anyone gets in, yes it was technically a UN operation, but it was an American war).

In Vietnam South Korea sent 320,000 soldiers. I'll just repeat that, 320,000 South Koreans served in Vietnam. Additionally, 50,000 Australians served, 40,000 Thais, 3000 New Zealanders and a numvber from the Philippines in a medical unit.

I can't be bothered listing countries for the two gulf wars and Afghanistan, but numerous NATO and non-NATO European nations served in all three wars, including a large French contingent in the first Gulf war.

This REALLY feels like a thread where the OP simply doesn't know enough about America's wars to have this discussion but has a STRONG opinion that has no relationship to actual facts. Is it too much ot ask that people do a bit of research on this stuff before vomiting up some emotional dreck of questionable factuality?

 

Who would you allow to assist us without declaring it makes us look weak?

 

When did I say anything about 'looking weak'. In the post you quoted, I said pragmatic. To put it bluntly, I want to maintain those alliances that we have historic ties to and a healthy degree of confidence: UK, Japan, France, etc. Basically the Mid-Atlantic, all the way to the Pacific. And I would leave the bulk of the rest to their violent history, knowing damn well they'll drag us along with it.

Under me, alliance with the US would be a lot harder and therefore meaningful to come by.

 

Alliance with the USA is already meaningful. I dont see a point in making it difficult.

Anti biden types would call it weak.

 

So this is you condemning China? N Korea? Iran? Golly...

 

I think you better reread your OP. You stated:

You put the trade issue in the thread. No one else.

Biden is not the sole person responsible. You are ignoring again, out of political convenience, the treaty with the Taliban, in which it stated that American troops must withdraw from Afghanistan in 18 months from the date of the agreement was signed. The problem is that the agreement did not have the current Afghan government at that time. Trump literally, and you BTW, sold them down the river to cover your own skins politically. Biden's issue was that his administration and the military were not prepared as much as they could have been. It was more or less, ad hoc, but that is how most withdrawals go, like Vietnam, 1974 for instance.

Imports and exports are a vital component of our economy. Imports can and will keep inflation down. It creates jobs, especially at the ports on the coast, import-export supply companies, and gernally part of the global supply chain that lowers cost due to comparative advantage being maximized. Neither Europe as a whole or Asian countries are protectionist. Neither is Canada or Mexico. And we just concluded a deal with Vietnam that would make it easier for us to invest in that country, increase our trade, and so forth. We are doing the same with Australia, New Zealand, and even Indonesia. But it really does not matter either whether we have a trade deficit or a trade surplus with any foreign country. The point is to increase trade, which increases our GDP, which increases our presence in the region. And the reason we do have trade deficits is that our Dollar is strong internationally, which makes our goods being exported that more expensive to other countries.

https://www.cfr.org/backgrounder/us-trade-deficit-how-much-does-it-matter

https://www.investopedia.com/articl...icit is neither,running country in the future.

https://www.epi.org/publication/trade-deficits-consequences-policy-implications/

 

This is the part many Americans don’t understand. It is Americas interest that Europe depend on US Military power rather than build their own military power as strong as US.

 

You misread, I didn't say the trade issue was off topic. I said wandering too deeply into Afghanistan gate wasn't the point. Because the overarching point in bringing that up wasn't Afghanistan gate by itself, but rather the reaction by our European allies to it. Where they were more interested in covering their own skin, than anything else.



The trade issue, and the fundamental overarching issue of our alliances is the issue. Because while they preach these are our 'norms', this is 'who we are', etc I notice a distinct lack of an ooph for America. If we indeed 'became isolationist' tomorrow, would we honestly feel it?

Think back to the Trump years, was any of our individual lives disrupted by those choices? Of course not. Did we face more foreign attacks? Were our soldiers compromised by enemy tactics? Not really, no. The US did not face a disadvantage by saying 'wait a minute, here'. No, who did, is the EU, allies, etc. The institutions.

They complained because they had the better part of this cozy relationship since 1945, with little to no drawback or pay to play for it.

We ourselves won't face the brunt of our own self prioritizing, but those who've come to rely on us would get the short end of the stick. And to that, I say too bad. Because check out my username/nickname on the forum.

 

So much demand from European to be allies with America. May be Europe should just drop America and join Russia and Indo-China alliance, and invite Japan and Australia to join them.

May be that would teach Americans “ be aware what you wish for”.