• Please take a moment and update your account profile. If you have an updated account profile with basic information on why you are on Air Warriors it will help other people respond to your posts. How do you update your profile you ask?

    Go here:

    Edit Account Details and Profile

Greenland

Faded Float Coat said:
I'm a product of Santa Rosa Country public schools, so I feel VERY comfortable saying this: I'm not sure the median MAGA voter can find Greenland on a map.
Click to expand...
I rather doubt you can lay that on either side of the political spectrum. The National Geographic–Roper 2002 Global Geographic Literacy Survey polled more than 3,000 18- to 24-year-olds in Canada, France, Germany, Great Britain, Italy, Japan, Mexico, Sweden and the United States.
Sweden scored highest; Mexico, lowest. The U.S. was next to last.

As noted in the report, “The survey demonstrates the geographic illiteracy of the United States," said Robert Pastor, professor of International Relations at American University, in Washington, D.C. "The results are particularly appalling in light of September 11, which traumatized America and revealed that our destiny is connected to the rest of the world." About 11 percent of young citizens of the U.S. couldn't even locate the U.S. on a map. The Pacific Ocean's location was a mystery to 29 percent; Japan, to 58 percent; France, to 65 percent; and the United Kingdom, to 69 percent. Lack of geographical literacy is more a matter of age than political affiliation.
 
CommodoreMid said:
Side note, if you want to be humbled on your geography knowledge, I present this game
worldle.teuteuf.fr

Worldle - Guess the Country

A daily geography game where you guess the country from its shape and get clues with every attempt. Play daily or explore the archive.
worldle.teuteuf.fr worldle.teuteuf.fr
Click to expand...
I got 20 out of 30 right, which sounds better than saying I got 10 out of 30 wrong, and which put me in the top 90th percentile, which confirms that 90% of people are below average.

Definitely some tricky ones in there.
 
Lawman said:
A quarter of the active US Army is in a nearly decade long rotational cycle of to protect the eastern flank, and it is eroding readiness and retention in ways that white papers are written about.

Pretending that NATO partner nations like Germany haven’t actively taken advantage of the US bearing the cost of the collective protection is just ignoring the actual truth which pre-Trump 16 that was a bipartisan view. They’ve got a years long road to go on spending and efforts to try and rectify that situation.
Click to expand...
I won't suggest they didn't, but I'm also going to say the Eastern flank countries are pulling their weight. As a percentage of GDP, Poland is spending nearly double the US the last time I checked. No one is laughing at the will to fight or the budgets in the Baltic nations.

With all that said, Europe is waking up and they are increasing spending. Also, those rotational forces are aided throughout the flank by the rest of Europe and even a rotational Canadian force - I know you might laugh at it - but the numbers are not insignificant.

I find it hard to believe the Army is stretched thin doing legitimate training exercises in a place that is reasonably likely that war could break out but you obviously would know better than I.

Edit: I see you talked about the numbers of the Army there and I get the strain, but it still doesn't address the issue that bases in Europe have, do, and will continue to provide strategically important basing locations for us to project power outside of Europe.
 
Last edited:
Spekkio said:
Flash, the world doesn't trust the United States. They never did.

They deal with us because they believe it's advantageous or in their best interests to do so. They do it knowing that we're going to get our pound of flesh from the deal.
Click to expand...
Hard disagree.

Name another country that has their troops in so many countries. China can afford it.

All those countries trust us that those aren't invasion forces.

In the post WWII world. the US has said that the world needs to run on a rules based order. For the most part we haven't violated that and an enormous amount of countries have come to trust us.
 
DanMa1156 said:
In the post WWII world. the US has said that the world needs to run on a rules based order. For the most part we haven't violated that and an enormous amount of countries have come to trust us.
Click to expand...
The nations that cooperate with us are those who think that the 'rules based order' benefits them and keeps them at the top of the pile. And the deep 'trust' for us among our tier 1 allies is based on the fact that they know that we are aligned against Russian expansionism into Europe and not based on some misplaced altruistic sense of the U.S. being an honest actor.

For others, the 'rules based order' is a way to keep them in the out-group. Trust has nothing to do with it, it's based on mutual national strategy goals.

Rabble-rousers violating the 'rules based order' is what led to the Napoleonic Wars, World War I, and World War II. And if we go to war with China, it will also be the cause.

It is also the reason that the U.S. cannot ever fully withdraw from Europe. Without America as the balance of power, Europe will be at war again within a decade or two to determine 'who is the king of kings?' Not just my opinion, the opinion of a half-dozen European senior officers. We already know that Russia is itching for it.
 
Last edited:
Spekkio said:
Rabble-rousers violating the 'rules based order' is what led to the Napoleonic Wars, World War I, and World War II. And if we go to war with China, it will also be the cause.
Click to expand...

No. The “rules based order” was created because of those conflicts. There were no global institutions during those timeframes nor treaties on human suffering or armed conflict. That was the point of the Bretton Woods institutions. The world has been able to avoid large scale human conflict since the end of WWII because of these institutions. Collective security, trade and economic development being the focal point of the order. The US was voluntarily responsible for collective security during a large portion of the last 75 years. We set up the current order to our and everyone’s benefit. If you have issues with the current construct then you only need to go as far as the greatest generation to blame - because they’re the ones who set it up. I’d imagine you’d probably feel the same way after living through the mass devastation of the early 20th century. Most people (most notably the MAGA camp) have forgotten or are completely ignorant of those historical developments. History repeating itself.
 
Hotdogs said:
No. The “rules based order” was created because of those conflicts. There were no global institutions during those timeframes nor treaties on human suffering or armed conflict. That was the point of the Bretton Woods institutions. The world has been able to avoid large scale human conflict since the end of WWII because of these institutions. Collective security, trade and economic development being the focal point of the order. The US was voluntarily responsible for collective security during a large portion of the last 75 years. We set up the current order to our and everyone’s benefit. If you have issues with the current construct then you only need to go as far as the greatest generation to blame - because they’re the ones who set it up. I’d imagine you’d probably feel the same way after living through the mass devastation of the early 20th century. Most people (most notably the MAGA camp) have forgotten or are completely ignorant of those historical developments. History repeating itself.
Click to expand...
Agreed 100%.

Trying to undermine the credibility or withdraw from those organizations in an effort to make it easier to lower our bills is a long term strategic mistake in my opinion.
 
Spekkio said:
The nations that cooperate with us are those who think that the 'rules based order' benefits them and keeps them at the top of the pile. And the deep 'trust' for us among our tier 1 allies is based on the fact that they know that we are aligned against Russian expansionism into Europe and not based on some misplaced altruistic sense of the U.S. being an honest actor.
Click to expand...
At the strategic philosophical level we could have chosen coercion as our primary mode of operation, but instead we chose cooperation and alliances. Other countries have made other choices. We've been winning for a long time, so I think we chose right.
Hotdogs said:
The world has been able to avoid large scale human conflict since the end of WWII because of these institutions.
Click to expand...
Pretty amazing how peaceful the globe has been, really.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top