You should visit Europe sometime, that will lay to rest this silly idea of that the EU is being "dominated" by the US.

And ask European voters if they support politicians willing to increase defense spending to levels their own generals say would allow self-sufficient national defense.

I expect you'll find that European countries are entirely independent, have legit shared security concerns with the US, agree with the US on desired military outcomes, and do not fund the outcomes they expect. Why not? Because good ol' Uncle Sam will pay it for them.

The US desires and has achieved a Europe without major military conflict. If we were trying to dominate them, they wouldn't be united, and there would be continuing wars. And slightly over half of them would be nicer to us, because there would be teams. As it is they're on their own team, so they're happy to be defended but they're not going to give thanks for it, or say anything nice about other teams.

Complete bullshit. That is stuff that should be cleared up by a 101-level understanding of international events. When the US "threatens" to reduce the number of troops stationed in Germany, the Germans protest. Literally, holding signs outside the US installations. It is what they ask of us, to keep lots of troops there. It is a major source of jobs, and helps Germany to maintain their lopsided manufacturing dominance.

Who wants a "fully armed German military?" I don't know, but not the Germans. Maybe Russia. Germans would riot in the streets if somebody tried it, too.

This isn't the 1950s.

Believing they might is not the same as "assuming they might." If you assume something, it means you suppose it to be true, without proof.

Saying something might be true is the opposite of assuming. It means, considering a possibility. There is no belief without proof there, instead there is lack of belief, based on lack of proof.

If in fact you accept that those sorts of diplomatic machinations are opaque, then you have to accept almost everything as being without proof. Therefore it is logical, and requires no assumptions, to say that known unknowns could have any value. You just can't know what is behind the curtain. If you draw the curtain back, you've simply removed the curtain, you still don't know what was behind it while it was still in place.

And it is a common, known pattern for US allies to be willing to be very close in secret, but to ask the US to participate in fake controversies that make them look more distant to their people. For example in the middle east it is common for governments to privately allow military over-flights, but then to denounce them in public as some sort of affront to their national dignity.

I just wanted to add that, on the issues of war and peace that Netanyahu and Obama disagree on, the analysis that Obama is using (that regional wars are bad for Israel, and that war with Iran would be really really bad for Israel) is the same position that the Israeli Defense Force and intelligence community have been giving to Netanyahu. Bibi is the one ignoring his own generals and analysts and pushing policies that are considered very dangerous.

I've got to call bullshit on that one. Cameras in every home would kill millions. Literally.

Read some history. War is Hell.

You don't need the subjective value judgement for it to be true. There are probably formulations that are even more true. For example, you can't ask your friend to share their secrets while openly sheltering their enemies from them.

Not only will they say "no," they'll be offended and you won't be as close of friends anymore.

To complain afterwards, "he didn't let me be his best friend and help his enemy too, he made me choose" is just exceptionally whiny.

When did Germany get so whiny? They know they want our secrets, and they insist on having larger US military bases than the US wants there. (Because attempts to increase their own military is internally controversial for them) If they're going to rely on our protection and share in our secrets, they should be acting a lot more enthusiastic about it. As an American voter, I don't really want my politicians to continue to give Germany this sort of access and support, because they don't appreciate it, and won't return the favors if we ask.

Germany these days looks like it wants the whole country to become East Germany. I say let them go shelter under the Russian wing, and see if that is a big coup for Russia, or if all that German manufacturing shifts to their neighbors. Germans claim to love austerity programs these days, I'm sure they'd make the adjustment just fine.

He's a patriot, he isn't going to violate his oath just to push his agenda.

I support his agenda to scale back these programs, and I support him doing it from within. He's almost the only one trying, and I'm proud that he represents my State.

Vietnam already has free market communism, with significant individual economic and artistic freedom.

Vietnam is now the world's biggest producer of coffee, and catfish. Who drinks more cheap coffee than Americans? We also buy their catfish.

They will consider our request. Russia can't afford to refuse to sell submarines right now. Just look at the good deal they gave the Chinese on oil. What can they threaten, to lower their prices? Are Russians going to switch from vodka to coffee?

The funny thing about the Sun Tzu quote is that that is part of his military philosophy that rejects encirclement actions.

History has proven that one. Encirclement is a larger military victory than letting the enemy making a tactical retreat.

Putin is using military tactics instead of diplomatic strategy, that is why he is trying to encircle them instead of persuade them.

Because if the US invaded the North, instead of just trying to defend the South (a losing prospect for various geographic reasons) then there would have been rioting on the streets of the US. We didn't actually fight the war that the military wanted, we fought the parts of the war that the politicians could defend. We would have had to completely destroy the northern cities, with millions of dead. There was no excuse for that as a defense for the South, and the Communists actually had decent public support.

There is no way the US would go back to attack Vietnam. There is no way. It is an insane prospect. It would not be entertained by anybody, in the military or in politics. And nobody at the State Department is going to use that sort of threat against Vietnam.

Any new US action in East Asia would be from the air and sea, and only with a broad coalition.

I believe we have already passed over into the New Cold War.

We pressed "reset" and the next thing we knew we had to push for sanctions. Everybody is gearing up for intrigue over fueling ports. I'm not saying there will be a new Cold War, just there already is one.

This year might find a significant increase in European defense spending.

Putin was always a tactics guy, not a strategy guy. But Russia has enough national identity that they can suffer on under central controls for a long time. Eventually their economy will collapse, and they'll give Crimea back. It could take 20 or 30 years.

Yes.

You should own those statements. you might not be able to find NATO on a map, but our military can.

And Congress already did.

And nobody is going to do a poll, our military commanders in Europe are already there, and will already be part of the fight from the beginning, and they won't need authorization. They're already the ones authorized to protect NATO.

That has got to be just about the lowest quality analysis I've seen in years. That is just, wow. Low information.

US interest rates only go up in order to intentionally slow down growth to prevent an over-heated economy and a boom/bust cycle.