nht

MplsP said:

Soli said:

MplsP said:
What about the old external hard drive I have? It’s USB 3, so plenty fast enough for all I need. Should I trash it and spend a bunch of money on a new one

LOL You're claiming that you have no recourse but to "trash" an external HDD because USB-C exists? Of all the shitty arguments in all the world. Geez.

Or, you could still use that exact same external HDD, but you know that.

Yes - of course I know that USB C is backward compatible with USB A. My point is that there’s no advantage to USB C with my existing external hard drive. It’s USB 3.2 and the speed is the same whether I use a USB C cable or a USB A cable. Everyone seems to think that I’m arguing that stuff wont’ work with USB C. Of course it will work; it just won’t work any better. Hence my point that there’s no push to upgrade. If I have a USB 3.2 drive that works just fine, why would I want to change to USB C? Just so I can get the new connector? 

Again - my point is not “usb c sucks;” my point is that for the vast majority of users there’s no significant improvement and thus no incentive to demand a change.

avon b7 said:

nht said:

avon b7 said:

Did you read the post I was replying to?

Here it is (my bold):

"...ONLY reason the EU has the social programs it has is because the EU members have NO military budgets to speak of. Instead the EU relies on the United States to protect it from the Russian Bear, the Middle East Islamic radicals. If the U.S. pulled out militarily from the EU and NATO those countries would have no choice but to dramatically increase their military budgets and those social programs would suffer big time. For over 70 years now the U.S. has spent its treasure to keep the peace in Europe."

Unless otherwise stated in my post, EU and Europe are interchangeable. That should be crystal clear to a person who lives in a place called "North America" and which provides for the same contextualisations.

Europe means EU!

Now, the 'otherwise stated' was duly and clearly pointed out with reference to Yugoslavia.

Surprising you managed to fudge things up.

You seem trapped in an old school thinking of 'tanks and battalions'. The world has moved on. The Russians will not invade Europe (let me clarify that for you: EU). Even if it had NO defence capacity!

Why? Because strategically the U.S would not allow it. It would be to much to lose so the whole thing becomes moot. That is the reality. 

However, Europe (yes, EU again) is planning for a unified defence platform but for reasons of strategic goals too. Just like the U.S (and Russia and China). It will happen. The last relevant EU meeting on this was last month (.pdf https://www.consilium.europa.eu/media/39786/st10048-en19.pdf)

Ukraine is strategic to the EU as the EU is to Ukraine. 

A Ukraine falling under the umbrella of the EU would automatically provide it with protection from Russia. No military hardware required.

Russia will huff and puff just like Trump huffs and puffs but the EU will chart its own military course but in line with its own objectives, not those who try to impose their own requirements from the outside.

That's utter bullshit.  If the EU was defenseless, which because of the US, UK, Poland and France it isn't, the Russians would take back all Warsaw Pact nations.  And if it wanted Germany the Germans couldn't stop them without our help.

And the entire point is that the EU has been freeloading on the US for defense because of the assumption that "strategically" we wouldn't allow it.  That YOU believe that the world has moved on from tanks and battalions is only because you live in a country completely sheltered by the tanks and battalions of the US. 

You ungrateful jerk.  My kid will serve so your kids can have socialized medicine without having to pay for an army that can stand up to a country that has already invaded Europe. 

And no...the EU will no longer mean Europe.  Not after Brexit. And your "unified defense platform" won't be anything worth spit in a real war without the UK.

There you go again with that old school thinking. That 'best military in the world' drum banging, which by chance was the same one that rang out during the Yugoslavian conflict.

I will repeat myself. If the EU was a hive if free loading but pacific hippies with no defence but for words, Russia (I'm surprised you don't call them 'commies') would not do anything on a military level because the U.S simply wouldn't stand back and let them swallow up the whole thing. Not for any love of the EU or its people of course but for purely strategic reasons.

Of course, that isn't the reality we live in and in 2016 the EU (as a collective) was second only to the U.S on defence spending (over 200 billion euros). Let that sink in for a while.

The goal now (and it is part of the summary I linked to) is to get (and to quote a U.S styling) 'more bang for buck'!

That is through better coordination, more procurement at EU levels (as opposed to national levels) and higher levels of military and civilian crossover.

If you read the summary, you will have noted that one of the major pillars of defence wasn't even around when your old school thinking was at its height. Cyberwarfare.

As for being ungrateful, what are you blathering on about now? That's irrevelant but possibly a sign of how you view most EU citizens.

Peace and stability within Europe
(the EU) has been mostly down to its own interweaving, not Uncle Sam! And it isn't easy to get over 20 member states to move in the same direction so it has been quite a task to pull off. 

It isn't paradise, it isn't perfect but the vast majority of people living here are pro EU and if the UK gets a second referendum I expect remain to win.

GeorgeBMac said:

avon b7 said:

nht said:

avon b7 said:

Did you read the post I was replying to?

Here it is (my bold):

"...ONLY reason the EU has the social programs it has is because the EU members have NO military budgets to speak of. Instead the EU relies on the United States to protect it from the Russian Bear, the Middle East Islamic radicals. If the U.S. pulled out militarily from the EU and NATO those countries would have no choice but to dramatically increase their military budgets and those social programs would suffer big time. For over 70 years now the U.S. has spent its treasure to keep the peace in Europe."

Unless otherwise stated in my post, EU and Europe are interchangeable. That should be crystal clear to a person who lives in a place called "North America" and which provides for the same contextualisations.

Europe means EU!

Now, the 'otherwise stated' was duly and clearly pointed out with reference to Yugoslavia.

Surprising you managed to fudge things up.

You seem trapped in an old school thinking of 'tanks and battalions'. The world has moved on. The Russians will not invade Europe (let me clarify that for you: EU). Even if it had NO defence capacity!

Why? Because strategically the U.S would not allow it. It would be to much to lose so the whole thing becomes moot. That is the reality. 

However, Europe (yes, EU again) is planning for a unified defence platform but for reasons of strategic goals too. Just like the U.S (and Russia and China). It will happen. The last relevant EU meeting on this was last month (.pdf https://www.consilium.europa.eu/media/39786/st10048-en19.pdf)

Ukraine is strategic to the EU as the EU is to Ukraine. 

A Ukraine falling under the umbrella of the EU would automatically provide it with protection from Russia. No military hardware required.

Russia will huff and puff just like Trump huffs and puffs but the EU will chart its own military course but in line with its own objectives, not those who try to impose their own requirements from the outside.

That's utter bullshit.  If the EU was defenseless, which because of the US, UK, Poland and France it isn't, the Russians would take back all Warsaw Pact nations.  And if it wanted Germany the Germans couldn't stop them without our help.

And the entire point is that the EU has been freeloading on the US for defense because of the assumption that "strategically" we wouldn't allow it.  That YOU believe that the world has moved on from tanks and battalions is only because you live in a country completely sheltered by the tanks and battalions of the US. 

You ungrateful jerk.  My kid will serve so your kids can have socialized medicine without having to pay for an army that can stand up to a country that has already invaded Europe. 

And no...the EU will no longer mean Europe.  Not after Brexit. And your "unified defense platform" won't be anything worth spit in a real war without the UK.

There you go again with that old school thinking. That 'best military in the world' drum banging, which by chance was the same one that rang out during the Yugoslavian conflict.

I will repeat myself. If the EU was a hive if free loading but pacific hippies with no defence but for words, Russia (I'm surprised you don't call them 'commies') would not do anything on a military level because the U.S simply wouldn't stand back and let them swallow up the whole thing. Not for any love of the EU or its people of course but for purely strategic reasons.

Of course, that isn't the reality we live in and in 2016 the EU (as a collective) was second only to the U.S on defence spending (over 200 billion euros). Let that sink in for a while.

The goal now (and it is part of the summary I linked to) is to get (and to quote a U.S styling) 'more bang for buck'!

That is through better coordination, more procurement at EU levels (as opposed to national levels) and higher levels of military and civilian crossover.

If you read the summary, you will have noted that one of the major pillars of defence wasn't even around when your old school thinking was at its height. Cyberwarfare.

As for being ungrateful, what are you blathering on about now? That's irrevelant but possibly a sign of how you view most EU citizens.

Peace and stability within Europe
(the EU) has been mostly down to its own interweaving, not Uncle Sam! And it isn't easy to get over 20 member states to move in the same direction so it has been quite a task to pull off. 

It isn't paradise, it isn't perfect but the vast majority of people living here are pro EU and if the UK gets a second referendum I expect remain to win.

While I agree with you,  I think, with regard to Russia, you are both missing the reason why they would not attack Europe:  Russia is now run by a bunch of capitalistic oligarch's (led by Putin) who are more interested in personal wealth than nationalistic expansion.    They are more likely to use tactics like they used in Britain to insure the Brexit vote went their way and here in 2016 to insure that our election went their way than to send tanks and planes.   They didn't even officially send their military into Ukraine -- it was all covert stuff and "volunteers".   They have a military and will use it when they need it (like in Syria), but otherwise they are just your typical Russian Oligarch/mobsters....

Bascally, they'll attack a country using social media to get what they want instead of spending billions on tanks, guns and bombs...   It's cheaper and more effective.

Abalos65 said:

cat52 said:

For those who think Europe has a well funded military, this article may catch you by surprise:

A German battalion assigned to Nato's rapid response force used broomstick handles instead of guns on a joint exercise due to chronic equipment shortages:
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/europe/germany/11420627/German-army-used-broomsticks-instead-of-guns-during-training.html


So please spare us the talk of how Europe can defend itself.

Do you think that such an article is a solid argument that all the armies of the WHOLE of Europe cannot defend themselves? This kind of article is just clickbait for people to confirm their biases or preconceived ideas. 

So please spare us the talk of how this is evidence of anything. (Condescending, isn't it?)

avon b7 said:

Did you read the post I was replying to?

Here it is (my bold):

"...ONLY reason the EU has the social programs it has is because the EU members have NO military budgets to speak of. Instead the EU relies on the United States to protect it from the Russian Bear, the Middle East Islamic radicals. If the U.S. pulled out militarily from the EU and NATO those countries would have no choice but to dramatically increase their military budgets and those social programs would suffer big time. For over 70 years now the U.S. has spent its treasure to keep the peace in Europe."

Unless otherwise stated in my post, EU and Europe are interchangeable. That should be crystal clear to a person who lives in a place called "North America" and which provides for the same contextualisations.

Europe means EU!

Now, the 'otherwise stated' was duly and clearly pointed out with reference to Yugoslavia.

Surprising you managed to fudge things up.

You seem trapped in an old school thinking of 'tanks and battalions'. The world has moved on. The Russians will not invade Europe (let me clarify that for you: EU). Even if it had NO defence capacity!

Why? Because strategically the U.S would not allow it. It would be to much to lose so the whole thing becomes moot. That is the reality. 

However, Europe (yes, EU again) is planning for a unified defence platform but for reasons of strategic goals too. Just like the U.S (and Russia and China). It will happen. The last relevant EU meeting on this was last month (.pdf https://www.consilium.europa.eu/media/39786/st10048-en19.pdf)

Ukraine is strategic to the EU as the EU is to Ukraine. 

A Ukraine falling under the umbrella of the EU would automatically provide it with protection from Russia. No military hardware required.

Russia will huff and puff just like Trump huffs and puffs but the EU will chart its own military course but in line with its own objectives, not those who try to impose their own requirements from the outside.