Yup, and honestly the US has never wanted Germany to actually spend 2% on armament. That would make the US entirely unnecessary in Europe's defence planning. Germany wouldn't know where to put all that money, and the military would dwarf that of Russia. It would look ridiculous, and people would panic about a 4rd Reich.
General / Off-Topic Are we brexiting?
- Thread starter FuzzySpider
- Start date
- Status
Yup, and honestly the US has never wanted Germany to actually spend 2% on armament. That would make the US entirely unnecessary in Europe's defence planning. Germany wouldn't know where to put all that money, and the military would dwarf that of Russia. It would look ridiculous, and people would panic about a 4rd Reich.
Psst dont tell them.
Even Israel has been positive about Germany building up Military Might.
Just let them do.
If Germany goes for 2% of GDP in Defence Germany alone will have an Military Budget equal to Russia.
I cant wait for the British Right Wing Papers to start Printing about the 4th Reich *gg*
Sharks .. with lasers.
Or Panzerklein - with swords - and shark lasers.
(seriously .. military budget is numpty - told ya I was staff soldier - we went to manouver in october .. and then realized we had about 120 missles at 20k a pop left and went again in december and fired all of them into the pampas - training effect: probably 0, but if you don't use the ammo, your budget goes down ... and then came the "yankees", dropped some boxes of ammo on the ground and just randomly shot stuff to the point where you could not even see what they hit [blah] )
Last edited:
While I personally think it's to his benefit, did you forget that it's the last thing Verminstar actually wants? That came across as (unintentionally?) nasty.
- - - Updated - - -
Your opinion is quite clear. This leaver tactic of "shuddup, the people have spoken!" is quite transparent.
- - - Updated - - -
It could be worth it just to see the Panzerklein.
exactly, part of the reason for NATO was to provide a credible defence against soviet tanks, without requiring Germany to have an enormous military, because that hasn't ended well in the past.
400,000 active duty, about 1,5 million total including "mobilization reserve" and about 2,5 million overall including "total defense reserve" (might be the other way around, but after service, I was "stuff hits the fan" reserve for another 5 years or so - non-active) up to the millennium thanks to conscription.
That's what you needed for "territorial defense". That's not what you need 2017 for specialized peacekeeping missions.
If you send troops there, they better be top-notch trained - more like police than like actual soldiers.
Last edited:
I'll make a bold prediction, bordering on psychic abilities.
Fyrd Judge will not acknowledge that he has been spouting rubbish. He will not apologise, nor accept that he was wrong.
He'll rather ignore the situation, possibly wait a little, and come back with another batpoop loco announcement.
Fyrd Judge will not acknowledge that he has been spouting rubbish. He will not apologise, nor accept that he was wrong.
He'll rather ignore the situation, possibly wait a little, and come back with another batpoop loco announcement.
You can always count on us to randomly shoot at stuff!
YEEEHAAAWW!!!
Anytime
If you actually hit what you're supposed to be aiming at, you could probably reduce your military spending
Last edited:
If you actually hit what you aiming at, you could probably reduce your military spending
If we are going to act like the Empire, we might as well shoot like them!
Eh, it's fun to shoot around in peacetime.
I was allowed to shoot M16 and your Machine gun, because nobody cared. Also drove around in Humvees to get coffee.
We got 10 shots per run and were expected to score 80+ on the range (made it to a joke "handed out 10" - "recieved 11"). And brew the coffee and pay for it. [haha]
If you actually hit what you're supposed to be aiming at, you could probably reduce your military spending
Also. Their losses would likely be cut in half if they would stop shooting each other.
In Iraq War they lost more Soldiers to Friendly Fire than to Iraq Military.
That is just a result of the Iraq Military being completely outmatched and outgunned. They never even really got much of a chance to shoot due to complete air superiority. In the following occupation, IEDs were the weapon of choice...so, knowing these things, it is pretty easy for friendly fire to be the larger number.
We lose way more people to violence in American cities, anyway.
But isn't this thread about the UK and stuff?....I'll sit quietly in my corner now.
Last edited:
What someone wants is very often irrelevent to how they should feel about something. It was a flat out honest statement. What advantages does being out the EU bring? Well the pro-Brexit Telegraph came up with these:
Unless he really hates newts or is happy to work 70 hours a week then he should be happy about reunification.
What do you mean "wait"?
http://www.express.co.uk/news/world...many-WON-the-Second-World-War-claims-new-book
verminstar
Banned
I didnt take it that way because thats not whats actually happening...hes just firing off randomly into the darkness and not actually hitting anything. The article itself is simply a statement of things we already knew ages ago, and his bastions of truth and accuracy made a boo boo in the first sentance of the first paragraph. Cant be nice having a dummy like me point out the obvious to someene who is supposedly smart, so I let it go to let himk nurse his bruised ego ^
Ah ninjad as I write...keep firing into the darkness kiddo ^
Last edited:
In other news:
https://www.theguardian.com/politic...econd-independence-referendum-nicola-sturgeon
Looks like Scotland is on the way out.
https://www.theguardian.com/politic...econd-independence-referendum-nicola-sturgeon
Looks like Scotland is on the way out.
Not necessarily, that's just to have a referendum. Westminster may try stop it being legally binding, or from taking place at all, and of course there's always the danger that it would return another no vote. We've not left yet, but our bags are packed and we're looking out the window for the taxi.
For May to refuse a referendum would play right into the hands of the SNP and their "England rules you" message, severely weakening the position of Wesminster in Scottish politics.
It will give masses of ammunition for her political opponents in Scotland, in the UK, and even in Europe as she tries to sell Brexit as the "will of the people" whilst refusing to grant Scotland a say.
If she allows the referendum, fights and loses, her position is even weaker.
I'm usually an advocate for a regulated free market but "Bendy Bananas"? What on Earth does such a regulation accomplish or protect?
Last edited:
- Status