Upgrade to enjoy this feature!
Vital MX fantasy is free to play, but Premium users receive great benefits. Premium benefits include:
- View and download rider stats
- Pick trends
- Create a private league
- And more!
Only $10 for all 2026 SX, MX, and SMX series.
It wasn't our factories after WW1 that made us rich. It was financing the war for every nation involved that made us rich enough to do what we did after the war. We bankrupted the world.
That's maybe a little problematic, because you're only left with two choices at that point, at least only two that I can think of atm. One is that any privately owned business would only be allowed to do business with the gov't if they're willing to do it for cost. And while many businesses are happy to do business for lights and wages, it's going to significantly reduce the pool of available talent/products/services, as well as foster disputes/divorces when something goes wrong, because there's zero padding to handle errors. The other thing it will do, is push the gov't basically start new business divisions to support itself, and that has some real potential positive/negative consequences depending on the products/services and depending on how it's done. Remember that as with many things it's not about finding a great answer, but sometimes about finding the least bad answer.
Could you expand on your explanation though to help me understand the perspective? Europe was bankrupt and then what? The US doesn't allow countries to be bankrupt and so we had to create NATO as a means of feeding them money for some purpose, but what is it? Because they were worried that poor economic conditions would increase the risk of them turning into a new Nazi Germany?
Communism was not rampant in Europe then, or ever. Communist IDEOLOGY was popular among workers because they saw it as a way for them (those who actually do the work) to take over and take back their freedom, their liberty, their right of self-determination, their autonomy, their independence, and their sovereignty.
Communism in PRACTICE has never existed in Europe (or anywhere for that matter, at least not in the modern sense of the word), except maybe in some areas of Spain for a very short time during their civil war in the 1930’s.
There were, and still are governments and regimes which call themselves communist, but they are not. Communism does not have hierarchies or leaders with authority. Soviet Russia was an authoritarian regime led by Stalin. Communist China was an authoritarian regime led by Mao and still being led by Maoist ideology. There are many other examples of so called communist countries but they’re all and always have been authoritarian which is the polar opposite of communism. Communism is communalism, it is community-ism.
I see a lot of people calling things or ideas communistic on this forum when it is in fact totalitarianism or authoritarianism. Just trying to set things straight and call things by their right and proper names
The Shop
Luxon 4-Post Bar Mounts
$189.95 - $239.95
DeCal Works Huge Plastic Inventory of UFO and Polisport kits.
Did find this...
https://scienzepolitiche.unical.it/bacheca/archivio/materiale/2467/Materiale%20didattico%20per%20corso%20magistrale%20Storia%20Integrazione%20Europea/Tony%20Judt-Postwar_%20A%20History%20of%20Europe%20Since%201945-Penguin%20Press%20(2005).pdf
At Bevin's urging, then, secret discussions took place in Washington between British, US and Canadian representatives to draft a treaty for Atlantic defense. On July 6th 1948, ten days after the start of the Berlin airlift and immediately following Yugoslavia's expulsion from the Cominform, these talks were opened to other members of the Brussels Pact, among whom the French were not well pleased to discover that once again the 'Anglo-Americans' had been arranging the world behind their back. By April of the following year the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation (NATO) had been agreed and signed by the US, Canada, and ten European states. NATO was a remarkable development. As late as 1947 few would have predicted that the United States would commit itself to a European military alliance. Indeed, there were many in the US Congress who were notably reluctant to approve Article V of the Treaty (which bound NATO members to come to one another's aid if attacked), and the Treaty only secured Congressional approval, after three months of discussion, because it was represented as an Atlantic defense pact, rather than a Euro-American alliance. Indeed, when Dean Acheson presented the Administration's case before the Senate, he took care to insist that America would not be deploying substantial ground forces in Europe. And this was indeed the American intention. If the United States was committing itself to an entangling European alliance for the first time, it was because many people in Washington saw NATO much as they saw the Marshall Plan: as a device to help Europeans feel better about themselves and manage their own affairs—in this case, their own defense. In itself, NATO changed nothing in the European military balance: of the fourteen divisions stationed in Western Europe, only two were American. The Western allies were still outnumbered on the ground 12:1. The US Chiefs of Staff in 1949 calculated that it would be 1957 at the earliest before an effective defense on the Rhine could be mounted. It was by no means inappropriate that at the NATO Treaty-signing ceremony in Constitutional Hall, Washington, on April 9th 1949, the band played 'I've Got Plenty of Nothing .. . '. Nevertheless, things looked rather different from the European side. The Americans did not ascribe much significance to military alliances; but Europeans, as Walter Bedell Smith advised his colleagues on the State Department Policy Planning Staff, 'do attach far more importance to the scrap of paper pledging support than we ever have.' This was not perhaps altogether surprising—they had nothing else. The British, at least, were still an island. But the French, like everyone else, were as vulnerable as ever: to the Germans and now to the Russians as well. NATO thus had a double attraction for Paris especially: it would place the line of defense against Soviet forces further east than hitherto—as Charles Bohlen had observed, some months before the Treaty was signed, 'the one faint element of confidence which [the French] cling to is the fact that American troops, however strong in number, stand between them and the Red Army.' And perhaps more important, it would serve as a reinsurance policy against German revanchism. Indeed it was only because of the promise of NATO protection that the French government, with the outcome of World War One still firmly in mind, conceded its approval for a West German state. The French thus welcomed NATO as the guarantee against a revived Germany that they had been unable to obtain by diplomatic means in the previous three years. The Dutch and Belgians also saw in NATO an impediment to future German revanchism. The Italians were included to help shore up Alcide De Gasperi's domestic support against Communist critics. The British regarded the NATO Treaty as a signal achievement in their struggle to keep the US engaged in Europe's defense. And the Truman Administration sold the agreement to Congress and the American people as a barrier to Soviet aggression in the North Atlantic. Hence the famous bon moř of Lord Ismay, who took up his post as NATO's first Secretary General in 1952: the purpose of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization was 'to keep the Russians out, the Americans in and the Germans down.' NATO was a bluff. As Denis Healey, a future British defense minister, observed in his memoirs, 'for most of the Europeans, NATO was worthless unless it could prevent another war; they were not interested in fighting one'. The originality of the Treaty lay not so much in what it could achieve but in what it represented: like the Marshall Plan—and the Brussels Treaty from which it sprang—NATO illustrated the most significant change that had come over Europe (and the US) as a result of the war—a willingness to share information and cooperate in defense, security, trade, currency regulations and much else. An integrated Allied command in peacetime, after all, was an unheard of departure from practice. But NATO did not leap fully formed from the agreements of 1949. In the spring of 1950 Washington was still worrying about how to explain to the French and other Europeans that the only realistic hope for West European defense was to rearm Germany, a subject that made everyone uneasy and was thought likely to provoke an unpredictable response from Stalin. In any case, no-one wanted to spend precious resources on rearmament. The appeal of neutrality—as an alternative to defenseless confrontation—was growing, in Germany and France alike. If the Korean War had not broken out just at this moment (a reasonable counter-factual, since it nearly didn't) the contours of recent European history might look very different indeed.
You make very good and valid points in your last response. But what I’m really trying to get at is the foundation of the issue. You guys argue about the walls, the color paints, the doors, the countertops. All semantics! I’m getting at the foundational issues. The root causes.
I occasionally agree with, and for the most part, and at the very least, respect your generally level headed and articulate opinions. But your last sentence is very telling. You are a reformist. And we will never agree because I, plainly and simply do not believe our current system of government/economy can be reformed into something more palatable.
Our current system is based on infinite growth within the confines of finite resources. Our system is based on the exploitation of all natural and human resources. Our system in not broken. It is working absolutely spectacularly and operating with almost complete efficiency.
The difference between you and I is this; that I believe our system is quite simply the wrong system! You believe in reformation. And I believe it is ignorant, naive, and a folly to believe what you believe.
You said “ you're only left with two choices at that point, at least only two that I can think of atm”.. there is a third choice. There is another path. But you’re either too dumb, blind, or without imagination to think of it. And I do not think you’re dumb or blind
Holy shit. If anyone actually wants to read about the topic, rather than just search the web, send me your address I will give you books, no charge. Not only was communism rampant in western Europe, it was ubiquitous in our own country. McCarthy and his trials were just a drop in the bucket. After the fall of the Soviet Union and release of their records, proves their tentacles reached a long way. You are fooled to diminish history's proof and evidence of communism's threat then, as you are to over extend the meager threat they have now. Please read up on this topic many things you and others hold to be true are most definitely not.
I disagree with the reformist label, because it implies conscious constraints to operate within and I don't have that. I think the misalignment in the conversation is that we were talking micro while you had macro thoughts. You'd have to let me in on those macro thoughts in order for me to get where you're going with it, because I was simply commenting on how making money shouldn't be viewed as an instant disqualifier. If you want to get into the macro of what shouldn't be profitable in order to maintain the most pure motives and thus the best intentioned results, then that's a great conversation to have! Maybe not so much here in the NATO thread, because it's such a huge topic that it would deserve its own.
And while unlimited consumption is virtually synonymous with capitalism/freedom, no system anywhere has ever been pure, which is why we do just fine with many socialized aspects that exist within our "limitless" capitalist system, so we're more than capable of providing limits on resources, like we already do in some instances, while maintaining our limitless system.
And I dunno if I'd use the words "complete efficiency" after talking about gov't spending. I'm sure you know what a mil-spec does to the price of a fastener!
My friend, I do very much agree with you when you say that “communism” was rampant and a very real threat in Europe after the war. My point was, was that what you are calling “communism” is not in fact communism at all but in fact authoritarianism or totalitarianism. Hence why I put communism in quotations when used under the context you’re using them.
McCarthy was an idiot and his “trials” set the precedent for the authoritarian and soon to be totalitarian regime which is currently enthroned in our government. The threat of “communism” supplying the context and the fear necessary in order to carry out these “trails” in a supposedly free country such as America.
You seem like an intelligent and well read individual but you clearly did not comprehend my post. That is, of course, if I am to assume correctly that your response was in direct response to my response on the use of what you call “communism”
US financial support to Europe was provided through the Marshall Plan, which ended in 1951 and was followed by the Mutual Security Act, which ended in 1961.
NATO was and is still a political and defense alliance, it has nothing to do with providing financial aid to Europe.
Sorry dude, after the fall of the Soviet Union and the release of their documents we have all been proven wrong about McCarthy. McCarthy wasn't an idiot, his accusations were just a drop in the bucket. If you don't like to read, Daryll Cooper has a cool podcast about him if you want to look it up. The USSR and it's spy network had it's entrail in aspects of our government, even at the highest levels, our media, and our entertainment. Another book suggestion, " Whitaker Chambers". This and McCarthy's accusations have been proven more than correct since the fall of the USSR.
I’m not completely sure i understand what you mean by “conscious constraints” but if I am understanding correctly, then that is a rational and fair argument to make for yourself.
Your idea of our misalignment within the conversation though, I believe to be your failing. For it is compartmentalized (bad) thinking which causes this assumption you have made, to not assume that I was speaking in terms of the macro.
Why would I not be referring to the “macro”? Why would I not refer to the cause? The better question is why would you only ever discuss the outcomes, or the effects, and not the cause? The only sense I can make of that is purely the result of compartmentalized thinking, which of course is the direct result of academia and it’s flawed methods (Only flawed in my mind, however it’s a perfectly executed and a perfectly functioning method of teaching for a system that does not want individuals to think holistically i.e. common sense, in order to be able to connect the dots.
This “macro” that I am speaking of is our current operating system. And it is very much the absolute root cause of the issue of the stupidity of NATO spending and of its very existence in the first place. In fact our current operating system is the absolute root cause of every single cultural, social, economic, and environmental problem we currently face. Which is why I would argue that this tread is a perfectly good place to bring up my points.
I do enjoy your responses 👍
If you consider the Soviet Union to be Communist, then yes I can see why you might think McCarthy not to be a dunce. But once again you’re not comprehending my assertion that the Soviet Union was not Communist in any way, shape, form, or at any point. Except in name.
My point was merely to make the claim that you are misinformed as to what Communism is.
I don’t care about McCarthy or his work. He is the Micro in this conversation and I want to concentrate on the Macro
Which to me means we should call things by their right and proper names.
So I ask; do you not agree that the Soviet Union and Maoist China were brutal authoritarian regimes?
By constraint I was meaning to be a reformist. Kind of the same as with consciously "being" anything, like a liberal, or a conservative, or whatever else, To consciously "be" one of those things at least somewhat means that you try to make all ideas fit within those constraints. I don't want to limit thoughts in that way. If there's a reformist idea that's good, or a revolutionary idea that's good, or whatever else, I wouldn't want to reject a good idea just because it's in a different system of philosophies.
And the micro/macro thing, we were first talking about little stuff, like when profiting is acceptable/unacceptable. I'm thinking of that as a micro conversation. Then there was some sort of intermixing with systemic changes, which is what I'm referring to as a macro conversation. I don't think it was a matter of limiting thought, just a matter of mixing up micro and macro aspects in a conversation. I'm totally down to have a systemic (macro) conversation on systemic changes.
I'd have to disagree on the stupidity of NATO in the first place, but the necessity of NATO today, especially in lieu of more direct relationships, is interesting. If we were on some hypothetical panel of people making direct decisions, I'd be open to the discussion, but it would depend on the intent. If the intent of getting rid of NATO were for the purpose of isolationism, like seeing horrific injustices in the world and having the ability to help and simply not wanting to because it's expensive, that's where I'd check out. If one wanted to get rid of NATO to replace it with direct relationships and effectively do the same things while simultaneously saving money, then you'd have to be silly to not have that conversation, imo.
You sound like you're saying you dislike capitalism without yet directly saying you dislike capitalism. Can you clarify on that and if you dislike capitalism and presumably any systems of economic freedom, what would you want to replace it with and what's the support for it that's merited enough to replace our existing system? Merit is important to me when considering massive changes, because anything less is whimsical and I don't think it's wise to make large whimsical changes. It's a pretty standard conservative take on things. Massive whimsical changes while being anti-capitalism is too Portland for my liking.
Did you guys pay off your student loans yet? 😀
For real, this is the best of non moto, keep it coming.
Sure, the Soviet Union was never really truly communist, perhaps insisting they remained in the dictatorship of the proletariat, but most of the people who supported their spy network in foreign lands were true believers in the system. Many of the communist in this country and others looked at communism as a legitimate form of government, that was an answer to many of the world's problems. Problems that included two world wars in a matter of few decades with millions upon millions dead or maimed. If workers of the world were united, there would be no such thing hypothetically. Think of post WW2, Germany and Japan laid waste to their respective parts of the world, the aid that we gave them to recover was not a good look in the eyes of their victims. That we rebuilt the very people who were involved in the rape of Nanking and the Holocaust, made our international policies difficult, countries felt betrayed. Many even in this country, we had many people in this country at the time who had families in the motherland who were victims of Germany and Japan. Perhaps it was the main reason so many mainland Chinese supported communism as an alternative to our system or their former system of government. The conundrum was at the time, if we didn't help Germany or Japan financially it was very possible, they could have developed as a communist country as well. Both countries had very real communist parties. And of course, communism in theory may be attractive to some, but in practice becomes a "brutal authoritarian regime". I believe history proves this repeatedly. But at the time, post WW2, many just viewed it as an alternative government system. People were just looking for answers to brutal questions. Those days are over, NATO is not needed.
So, in your world a "real patriot" is someone who defends other countries on the tax dollars of hard-working Americans?
The irony of all this, we spend bigly on defense in Europe. This allows them to spend less of their own money and use that saved money to give it to Russia for energy.
Pit Row
Things were so much better when Trump was president. It's not complicated even though some try to make it so. They generally use misunderstanding to make their logic work. Like some high end math were one has to use a fudge factor to make it work out. It doesn't
Fake News: Since 2023 Gazeprom isn't delivering gas. The propaganda at your side of the ocean isn't good, isn't good at all! Oh by the way, because a lot of European countries have American nukes, they got no choice when they wanted to update their fighter-jets. The much more expensive Lockheed Martin F-35 (instead of the French Eurofighter Typhoon). So the "invest to get 2% GDP towards our Defensive department" means mostly: Pay billions to American companies. We even buy American guns when we've one of the best manufacturers in Europe with FN Herstal.
The propaganda that the NATO costs the USA money is a ridiculous lie, almost as ridiculous as believing that Melania Trump enjoys the passionate moments with Donald.
PS: Little fact but the GDP rose with almost 7 billion dollar under Sleepy Joe' term, a clear difference against an other giant such as Japan who lost one billion in GDP in four years but also other big industry nations as Germany suffers! It looks like his administration isn't too bad, Trump, who suffered with Covid due to his term and that inflicted his economical growth, got his GDP up with 3 billion, but that was equal with global trends.
Well, if you do things like spend $7.5billion for 8 electric car chargers, you can really make the GDP look great! But is it really? And since everything is close to 30%-50% more, companies could get orders for smaller quantities and still deal in more dollars. Yeah, I know they'll tell you inflation wasn't that much but just try to buy a gallon of gas today. Sub $3.00 in CA when Trump was in office, now it's sub $5.00 in CA (unless you're in the cities where it's $5+. So you could do less business and turn over more $$s
TM
Who buys American guns? Who is we? Pretty sure Belgium uses the FN Scar or versions of it. US tried them but they didn’t perform much better than the M4 or show a measurable advantage and cost a lot more money.
Other countries might use M4 variants like the HK416 or Colt Canada/Diemaco but not US made that I know of.
Europe has a pretty healthy arms industry, I’d hardly say they are forced to use a ton of US hardware.
Russia still ships a shitload of gas to Europe. If you’re gonna talk shit at least try to get it right.
Mattii, the best part…..
Data from the first quarter of 2024 shows that Russian LNG exports to Europe have risen again by 5% year-on-year. France, Spain and Belgium have been particularly big importers. Those three countries accounted for 87% of the LNG that came into the EU in 2023.
You and that old unelected hag Ursula can’t get off the Russian gas teet😂
And if you don’t wanna buy F35’s maybe you should develop some 5th gen fighter aircraft in Europe.
Europe has two 6th generation fighters in development, one called the Future Combat Air System being developed by France, Germany, and Spain, the other is called the Future Combat Air System being developed by the UK, Italy and Japan with some involvement of Sweden.
Cool, come back and update us in 20 years when maybe they will be close to being in service.
20 years, you're being optimistic.
Figured I’d try to be positive.
Hope Mattii is liking his Russian gas.
They don't have the infrastructure to import gas from other places, so they don't have a choice.
It’s being worked on, but that’s not an overnight solution. The point about over-reliance on Russian gas is a valid one that Europe sleep-walked itself into because it was cheap and cheap heating and electricity is popular with voters. It took ten years or more to put in place and the idea you can switch it off overnight is laughable. While you guys complain about petrol and diesel prices, it’s worth pointing out the average gas/electricity bill in the UK last winter hit nearly £300 a month and petrol is currently around £1.50 a litre which is more like $10 a gallon.
Post a reply to: Trump vs The NATO