4 ms·

The usa couldnt handle Aghanistan. Now they are invading continental Europe? As I said, still licking the car battery.

by ta20240528 11mo ago

YC9834689 11mo ago
Most European countries barely have a standing military to defend themselves, they're completely dependent on the USA for defense through NATO. And their leadership is so docile and complacent that I can't see them being able to muster up a strong resistance to any incursion, most likely if there was an actual invasion of The Hague they would let America do what they need to and try to return back to business as usual as quickly as possible. Again, they're not the types to think beyond the status quo.
- mcv 11mo ago
  The EU put together has the second largest military in the world. > And their leadership is so docile and complacent That is the real issue.
- ta20240528 11mo ago
  "Most European countries … are completely dependent on the USA for defense" Only if invaded by Russia and possibly China. And even then only the little peripheral ones. UK, Germany, and France could handle Russia - up to and including nukes. For any conceivable military or paramilitary invasion from the rest of world, Europe will do just fine. And sadly (an a bit off topic) , Europe — well Denmark at least — is most likely to face an military invasion from the USA.
dghlsakjg 11mo ago
In fairness, the US has a pretty good record when it comes to invading continental Europe. They already have troops and nukes on the ground in the Netherlands... And they didn't exactly struggle with the invasion parts of Afghanistan and Iraq, nor in the getting of high status targets in those theaters. Arguably, the ICJ in the Hague is actually a result of one of those successful deployments of US forces on the continent. Still not sure what can be done about the car battery ingestion challenges, though.
- nebula8804 11mo ago
  >And they didn't exactly struggle with the invasion parts of Afghanistan and Iraq, nor in the getting of high status targets in those theaters. That was post 9/11. The mentality and motivation was different back then. Im not saying the US Military is anything less than a top tier orderly organization, its just that morale is generally low now among not only ranks but the entire country that supports them. You can't just throw out events occurring 23 years ago under a completely different context and assume things are the same. I'd argue an initial moves against Europe, Canada, etc. would be a bigger mess initially than Afghanistan/Iraq were.
  - dghlsakjg 11mo ago
    My comment was in fun. I hoped that the reference to licking car batteries would signal that. No one is sending in the troops to rescue Bibi from the Hague for a variety of reasons. Chief among them is that he is not currently under arrest, and the chances of him being arrested are effectively nil. Also, Mossad.
    - ta20240528 11mo ago
      I don't understand the Mossad comment - unless its just "ooh they're so scary" fanboy stuff. Let's suppose Netanyahu is somehow arrested and held in a highly secure government prison in The Netherlands awaiting his chance to clear his name at the ICC. What exactly do you suppose Mossad is going to do? - break him out? how? - openly assassinate politicians/judges until someone gives in? - blow up civilians? What?
      - fragmede 11mo ago
        Of course not, haven't you seen any movies? They break him out during transport, either by hijacking a plane, or through a complicated series of car and bus chase scenes! Maybe a helicopter and submarine, too.
      - dghlsakjg 11mo ago
        This is - again, I can't emphasize enough - all a joke about a hypothetical situation. Bibi has not been arrested, he won't be arrested anytime soon, and the US is not at the point where they are willing to invade Europe to save him. What do I think Mossad would do in the made up, improbable, alternate universe where we are debating the US invading their European allies? I think that Mossad/Israeli security would never be caught flatfooted enough to allow Israeli leaders to visit a country that was planning to arrest them. I thoroughly believe that it would be nigh impossible to maneuver an Israeli head of state into a position where they were arrested. If things change and he is no longer protected by Israeli security, that is different. So in answer to your question, no Mossad is not going to be breaking him out of a maximum security prison. They are going to use their intelligence network to say "Hey Benji, stay out Canada. They are going to arrest you, and have you tried if you set foot on their soil". Or "Hey Bibs, this state visit is mildly risky, we have an extraction plan in place if shit goes sideways."
jack_tripper 11mo ago
>The usa couldnt handle Aghanistan Reddit level argument ignoring the fact that the US's goal there wasn't to win anything since there's nothing of value there, it was to funnel taxpayer money to the military industrial complex for 15 years. Pretty sure the US could have glassed Afghanistan off the map if they really wanted but probably wouldn't have been very popular decision.
- lossolo 11mo ago
  > US's goal there wasn't to win anything since there's nothing of value there War is only a tool, dominating a country or region militarily is not the same as winning a war if you have not achieved its political goals. In Afghanistan, those goals were not achieved, which means the war was lost.
  - Loughla 11mo ago
    What were the goals for Afghanistan?
    - lukan 11mo ago
      Destroying Al Quaida and their host, the Taliban. Al Quaida might be gone, but I believe Taliban are in power today and the US left in a not so glorious way after giving up fighting them.
      - freehorse 11mo ago
        Not just "giving up fighting them": when the US decided to leave, the taliban were in a stronger position than they were before the US invaded (eg they controlled a bigger part of the country and had much less opposition inside afghanistan). The war was already lost long before the US decided to leave.
throawayonthe 11mo ago
i think it's one of those things where how/if they will do it doesn't matter, it's a "we make the rules" thing if the situation is such that a US -> Netherlands land invasion (with somehow independent armed forces?) is imaginable, you're past the point of the US-ICC legal relations mattering (i'd go so far as to say there's no sovereignty to speak of here :p)

The usa couldnt handle Aghanistan. Now they are invading continental Europe? As I said, still licking the car battery.

Most European countries barely have a standing military to defend themselves, they're completely dependent on the USA for defense through NATO. And their leadership is so docile and complacent that I can't see them being able to muster up a strong resistance to any incursion, most likely if there was an actual invasion of The Hague they would let America do what they need to and try to return back to business as usual as quickly as possible. Again, they're not the types to think beyond the status quo.

mcv 11mo ago
The EU put together has the second largest military in the world. > And their leadership is so docile and complacent That is the real issue.
ta20240528 11mo ago
"Most European countries … are completely dependent on the USA for defense" Only if invaded by Russia and possibly China. And even then only the little peripheral ones. UK, Germany, and France could handle Russia - up to and including nukes. For any conceivable military or paramilitary invasion from the rest of world, Europe will do just fine. And sadly (an a bit off topic) , Europe — well Denmark at least — is most likely to face an military invasion from the USA.

dghlsakjg 11mo ago

In fairness, the US has a pretty good record when it comes to invading continental Europe. They already have troops and nukes on the ground in the Netherlands... And they didn't exactly struggle with the invasion parts of Afghanistan and Iraq, nor in the getting of high status targets in those theaters. Arguably, the ICJ in the Hague is actually a result of one of those successful deployments of US forces on the continent. Still not sure what can be done about the car battery ingestion challenges, though.

nebula8804 11mo ago
>And they didn't exactly struggle with the invasion parts of Afghanistan and Iraq, nor in the getting of high status targets in those theaters. That was post 9/11. The mentality and motivation was different back then. Im not saying the US Military is anything less than a top tier orderly organization, its just that morale is generally low now among not only ranks but the entire country that supports them. You can't just throw out events occurring 23 years ago under a completely different context and assume things are the same. I'd argue an initial moves against Europe, Canada, etc. would be a bigger mess initially than Afghanistan/Iraq were.
- dghlsakjg 11mo ago
  My comment was in fun. I hoped that the reference to licking car batteries would signal that. No one is sending in the troops to rescue Bibi from the Hague for a variety of reasons. Chief among them is that he is not currently under arrest, and the chances of him being arrested are effectively nil. Also, Mossad.
  - ta20240528 11mo ago
    I don't understand the Mossad comment - unless its just "ooh they're so scary" fanboy stuff. Let's suppose Netanyahu is somehow arrested and held in a highly secure government prison in The Netherlands awaiting his chance to clear his name at the ICC. What exactly do you suppose Mossad is going to do? - break him out? how? - openly assassinate politicians/judges until someone gives in? - blow up civilians? What?
    - fragmede 11mo ago
      Of course not, haven't you seen any movies? They break him out during transport, either by hijacking a plane, or through a complicated series of car and bus chase scenes! Maybe a helicopter and submarine, too.
    - dghlsakjg 11mo ago
      This is - again, I can't emphasize enough - all a joke about a hypothetical situation. Bibi has not been arrested, he won't be arrested anytime soon, and the US is not at the point where they are willing to invade Europe to save him. What do I think Mossad would do in the made up, improbable, alternate universe where we are debating the US invading their European allies? I think that Mossad/Israeli security would never be caught flatfooted enough to allow Israeli leaders to visit a country that was planning to arrest them. I thoroughly believe that it would be nigh impossible to maneuver an Israeli head of state into a position where they were arrested. If things change and he is no longer protected by Israeli security, that is different. So in answer to your question, no Mossad is not going to be breaking him out of a maximum security prison. They are going to use their intelligence network to say "Hey Benji, stay out Canada. They are going to arrest you, and have you tried if you set foot on their soil". Or "Hey Bibs, this state visit is mildly risky, we have an extraction plan in place if shit goes sideways."

jack_tripper 11mo ago

>The usa couldnt handle Aghanistan Reddit level argument ignoring the fact that the US's goal there wasn't to win anything since there's nothing of value there, it was to funnel taxpayer money to the military industrial complex for 15 years. Pretty sure the US could have glassed Afghanistan off the map if they really wanted but probably wouldn't have been very popular decision.

lossolo 11mo ago
> US's goal there wasn't to win anything since there's nothing of value there War is only a tool, dominating a country or region militarily is not the same as winning a war if you have not achieved its political goals. In Afghanistan, those goals were not achieved, which means the war was lost.
- Loughla 11mo ago
  What were the goals for Afghanistan?
  - lukan 11mo ago
    Destroying Al Quaida and their host, the Taliban. Al Quaida might be gone, but I believe Taliban are in power today and the US left in a not so glorious way after giving up fighting them.
    - freehorse 11mo ago
      Not just "giving up fighting them": when the US decided to leave, the taliban were in a stronger position than they were before the US invaded (eg they controlled a bigger part of the country and had much less opposition inside afghanistan). The war was already lost long before the US decided to leave.

throawayonthe 11mo ago

i think it's one of those things where how/if they will do it doesn't matter, it's a "we make the rules" thing if the situation is such that a US -> Netherlands land invasion (with somehow independent armed forces?) is imaginable, you're past the point of the US-ICC legal relations mattering (i'd go so far as to say there's no sovereignty to speak of here :p)