POLANDA : - powered by PolishForums Classifieds [67] Off-Topic [153]
Results: 41    

Off-Topic« 1st page - page 2 of 2

US: Time to Quit as the World Dumbest Cop


johnny reb
20 Jun 2018  #31

So why are American troops still stationed in Europe,

Insurance policies.
Anyone that attacks Poland would kill U.S. soldiers meaning, you attack Poland you just attacked America too.
The people in Poland know what's going on since it is only 30 miles from their border where the Russian nukes are located.
Those nukes are also presently being upgraded.
thenews.pl/1/10/Artykul/368948,Russia-upgrades-nuclear-weapons-bunker-across-Polish-border-report
Rich Mazur
20 Jun 2018  #32

Anyone that attacks Poland would kill U.S. soldiers meaning, you attack Poland you just attacked America too.

Can I assume that an attack on the US would be an attack on Poland and that Poland would immediately run to America's defense?

Or is Poland now another military obligation on the US taxpayers' dime?

This trip wire madness all over the world is insanity. It allows the states on the US military welfare - like Korea, Japan, and now Poland - to spend less on their military and more on their roads, bridges, and schools while ours are crumbling. F****** brilliant.
dolnoslask
20 Jun 2018  #33

Can I assume that an attack on the US would be an attack on Poland

You are not in a position to assume anything about Poland. As a young man you ran away from its problems to further your own personal gain, In the same as Nigerian and Somali migrants are deserting their country in droves today.
TheOther
20 Jun 2018  #34

Anyone that attacks Poland would kill U.S. soldiers meaning, you attack Poland you just attacked America too.

An attack on a NATO member is automatically an attack on all members and would trigger a response. That's why I don't believe that we need boots on the ground to prevent the Russians from making a fatal mistake. A handful of nukes will do.

Can I assume that an attack on the US would be an attack on Poland and that Poland would immediately run to America's defense?

You know that the U.S. was the only NATO member which ever triggered Article 5, right? The others responded and some of them are still in Afghanistan fighting our war.
Paulina
20 Jun 2018  #35

Can I assume that an attack on the US would be an attack on Poland and that Poland would immediately run to America's defense?

Yes, you can:

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Task_Force_White_Eagle

pl.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polski_Kontyngent_Wojskowy_w_Iraku
Ironside
20 Jun 2018  #36

Eastern Europe doesn't owe the US a thing, Ironside??! Are you high or what!

Sure, you can address me by your highness. Its fitting.

If it weren't for Reagan giving the initial push

yeah yadda yadda, there is a long line of those who want to take a credit for it. No pasarán! Success has many fathers while failure is an orphan.

@TheOther - yes indeed - propaganda.
Rich Mazur
21 Jun 2018  #37

Yes, you can:

I like a good joke. I can even laugh at myself when I say something really dumb. But your joke is not funny.

2500 soldiers from Poland doing patrol duty? And 23 killed over 4 years? We have 12,500 cops in Chicago alone!

On top of that, Poles were playing cops and, later, cops and instructors. Quoting: ...oraz zmiana zadań ze stabilizacyjnych na stabilizacyjno-szkoleniowe.

In Iraq, Poles did not defend the US. The US was an aggressor and so was Poland.

BTW, if not a single Polish soldier had gone there, the outcome would have been the same. For reference: the US KIA's were 4500.
dolnoslask
21 Jun 2018  #38

How then you explaining emergence of Multi-Polar world

Crow !! how do you expect me to be qualified to explain that one?, sometimes your questions are far too smart for this forum,
Crow
21 Jun 2018  #39

Its not hard to be smart, dobri brate. Really. Many English and Paki here.
Paulina
22 Jun 2018  #40

In Iraq, Poles did not defend the US.

Bush and Rumsfeld claimed otherwise:

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bush_Doctrine

"a strategy of 'preemptive strikes' as a defense against an immediate or perceived future threat to the security of the United States."

So, in the mind of the American president Poland came in the defense of the United States.
That was your question and you got your answer - whether Poland would immediately run to America's defense. It already did. Twice.
The question wasn't about what was the military significance of the Polish involvement, whether it was right or wrong, moral or not. Poland was called upon as an ally and it answered the call. It means that it can answer it again, especially if the US is in an actual, real danger in the future.

Btw, those a few thousands Polish soldiers in Iraq and Afghanistan meant less American boots on the ground and that's always something for the families that stay behind in the US, I imagine.

As for the number of Polish soldiers who died in Iraq (22), who were wounded (150) and those who died in Afghanistan (44) - what's your point? You'd rather more were killed? In the battle of Mogadishu in 1993 ("Black Hawk Down" film) "only" 18 American soldiers lost their lives and apparently from 800 to 1000 Somali insurgents were killed and probably 4000 were wounded.
Rich Mazur
22 Jun 2018  #41

So, in the mind of the American president Poland came in the defense of the United States.

The American president said this because it was politically expedient. But it was a lie and he knew it.

The common sense use of the word "defense" does not include an act of aggression. If I started beating Paulina and my buddy helped me beating Paulina so that I could get some rest, my buddy's action would hardly be seen as defending me. It would be called an assault on Paulina, which is a felony.

Poland, along with the US, committed an act of aggression in Iraq. I have no proof, but I would bet that all of those "coalition" countries were compensated by the US for their mere presence to allow the US to call the attack on Iraq "international". That was window dressing, pure and simple. The US could have done that job all by itself but it wouldn't look so noble. In fact, some of those international troops were a net liability to the US as they had to be protected by - you guessed it - the US.

PreviousNext
Kim meets Trump. How much is this going to cost the US? [27]


Off-Topic / US: Time to Quit as the World Dumbest Coptop