US Senate to vote to Ratify Sweden and Finland NATO membership

  • You are viewing Orangepower as a Guest. To start new threads, reply to posts, or participate in polls or contests - you must register. Registration is free and easy. Click Here to register.

ramases2112

Federal Marshal
A/V Subscriber
Jun 28, 2008
11,499
5,601
1,743
30
Inside the Basket of Deplorables
www.reddit.com
#3
Really depends tbh. If NATO up their own defense in Europe against Russia then sure. We need to be moving as many assets as possible from Europe to Asia and if Sweden and Finland are truly capable of helping facilitate that then I dont see why they shouldnt be admitted. If they dont, and they cause us to have to increase our force there, then no they dont need to be admitted. Russia is not a global threat, they are a regional threat. We need to be focused on our true enemy, the Chinese.
 
May 31, 2007
2,432
524
1,743
Concord
#4
Really depends tbh. If NATO up their own defense in Europe against Russia then sure. We need to be moving as many assets as possible from Europe to Asia and if Sweden and Finland are truly capable of helping facilitate that then I dont see why they shouldnt be admitted. If they dont, and they cause us to have to increase our force there, then no they dont need to be admitted. Russia is not a global threat, they are a regional threat. We need to be focused on our true enemy, the Chinese.
It looks like the people that are voting no are doing so based on what you just laid out. From an asset allocation standpoint, you have a very good point.
 

Binman4OSU

Legendary Cowboy
Aug 31, 2007
37,973
10,912
1,743
Stupid about AGW!!
#5
It looks like the people that are voting no are doing so based on what you just laid out. From an asset allocation standpoint, you have a very good point.
do we have any numbers on asset Allocation the US is being asked to distribute for it or is it speculation?

I'm sure the Monetary aspect of assets is there, but I'm thinking of more military assets
 
May 31, 2007
2,432
524
1,743
Concord
#6
do we have any numbers on asset Allocation the US is being asked to distribute for it or is it speculation?

I'm sure the Monetary aspect of assets is there, but I'm thinking of more military assets
I think it’s a matter of people thinking the US should pull back on existing NATO obligations and have the European members fill in that gap. And then the US should move those resources towards the containment of China. Adding two more countries to NATO adds two more obligations to the US, and there’s no guarantee Finland/Sweden are going to put forth the kind of defense expenditure on an annual basis that would allow the US to pull back on their commitment. So I think it is both monetary and military allocations that we are talking about. For example, if the US had to divert a significant amount of troops from the NATO region to Asia due to an imminent or perceived threat, are the other NATO members capable of filling in that gap so that Russia for example isn’t given an opening? I think some believe that answer right now is “no”.
 

Binman4OSU

Legendary Cowboy
Aug 31, 2007
37,973
10,912
1,743
Stupid about AGW!!
#7
I think it’s a matter of people thinking the US should pull back on existing NATO obligations and have the European members fill in that gap. And then the US should move those resources towards the containment of China. Adding two more countries to NATO adds two more obligations to the US, and there’s no guarantee Finland/Sweden are going to put forth the kind of defense expenditure on an annual basis that would allow the US to pull back on their commitment. So I think it is both monetary and military allocations that we are talking about. For example, if the US had to divert a significant amount of troops from the NATO region to Asia due to an imminent or perceived threat, are the other NATO members capable of filling in that gap so that Russia for example isn’t given an opening? I think some believe that answer right now is “no”.
thanks for the detail. I can understand that. I wouldn't want to vote yes or no either without seeing those kind of details.
 

llcoolw

Territorial Marshal
Feb 7, 2005
8,987
3,896
1,743
Sammamish, Washington.Dallas, Texas.Maui, Hawaii
#14
The ambassadors of Finland and Sweden were on hand in the Senate gallery to watch as senators voted 95-1. Only Senator Josh Hawley, Republican of Missouri, voted no. Senator Rand Paul, Republican of Kentucky, voted present.
I feel like I might be that 1 as well. It’s becoming obvious Russia isn’t near the threat as someone else is. Leave the bear alone and poke the panda in the eye.

North Atlantic waters aren’t considered near the Indian Ocean are they? Bummer