Thread Rating:
  • 2 Vote(s) - 5 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
Doug Casey On The Shocking 2025 “Deagel” Forecast
#1
https://www.activistpost.com/2021/04/dou...-west.html

Some of our members may be familiar with the prediction others may not. It is weird nevertheless.

Quote: Doug Casey On The Shocking 2025 “Deagel” Forecast: War, Population Reduction, & The Collapse Of The West

TOPICS:BioweaponsDoug CaseyEconomic CollapseTyler Durden
April 22, 2021
[Image: deagel.jpg]Op-Ed by Doug Casey, International Man
International ManDeagel is a private online source for the military capabilities of the world’s nation-states. It recently released a shocking five-year forecast.
The report analyzes countries by projected population size, GDP, defense budget, and more.
In it, they predict a 70% reduction in the size of the United States population.
This is a bold prediction. What are your thoughts on this?
Doug Casey: I’ve got to say that I wasn’t familiar with Deagel – it keeps a low profile. Deagel is in the same business as Jane’s—which has been in the business of analyzing weapons systems for many decades.

A look at the Deagel website, which is quite sophisticated, makes it clear we’re not dealing with some blogger concocting outrageous clickbait. It seems to be well-connected with defense contractors and government agencies like the CIA.
They’ve predicted that about 70% of the US population, and about the same percentage in Europe, is going to disappear by 2025. It’s hard to believe that anybody in their position would make a forecast like that. There’s no logical business reason for it, especially since it was done before the COVID hysteria gripped the world. It stretches a reader’s credulity.
Could it possibly happen? It would be the biggest thing in world history. Does it have a basis in reality, or is it just some bizarre trolling exercise? I’m not sure—it’s hard to take almost anything from any source at face value these days. But for the last several years, I’ve been saying that World War III would basically be a biological war. Of course, it will have substantial conventional, nuclear, space-based, and AI/computer elements as well, but its most serious component will be biological. Essentially, it will involve the use of bacteria and viruses to wipe out the enemy. The odds are that it will be between the US and China. But since anyone with a CRISPR in their garage can hack the genome and DNA of almost anything and anybody… there are no limits to the possibilities.
Certainly, from the Chinese point of view, a biological war makes all the sense in the world. That’s because the Han Chinese share a lot of genetic similarities. Presumably, a bacteria or virus can be bred to favor the Chinese and take out most everybody else. The fact is that anything that can be done eventually will be done. It’s just the law of large numbers.
Somebody might respond, “Well, that’s horribly racist.” Of course it’s racist. Notwithstanding rational and philosophical arguments against it, all ethnic groups and countries are quite naturally racist. A fear of different racial and ethnic groups has been bred into humans, as a survival mechanism, over the hundreds of thousands of years since we became biologically modern.
FREE PDF: 10 Best Books To Survive Food Shortages & Famines
All races and ethnic groups like to think that they’re “the best” or the most worthy, and that non-members are “other”, perhaps only marginally human. Biological warfare plays directly into feeling.
Americans who—like everybody else—see themselves as “the good guys”, believe we’re immune to that. However, don’t forget that the US pioneered modern biowarfare. Fort Detrick, Maryland, has been an epicenter of it for over 70 years, and there are undoubtedly many other more clandestine sites where US government agencies are working on biological warfare. No doubt the Chinese and other major powers are working clandestinely as well. It’s not something anybody wants to advertise for many reasons.
What shocks me is not that a biowar is being researched or even actively wargamed, but that a connected organization like Deagel is actually saying it publicly. It’s not like what goes on in the spook community is an open book.
Deagel doesn’t explicitly say what, exactly, will cause the great die-off. But there are many advantages to biological warfare over other types of warfare, so it will probably be featured. It’s probably inevitable, now that the technology has made it practical.
What are the advantages of biowar? What might wargaming generals like about it?
  • First, it doesn’t destroy materiel. That’s a huge plus. After all, what’s the point of conquering a country if all you have to show for it is a smoking radioactive ruin? That’s the major advantage of the neutron bomb, of course; it kills the people but limits damage to buildings. Bioweapons essentially make atomic weapons obsolescent.
  • Second, bioweapons can be structured to attack only certain racial groups. That’s potentially either a big advantage or disadvantage to China. The diverse population of the US could also be either an advantage or a disadvantage, depending on who strikes first. But, on the bright side, you can perhaps immunize your own population, or at least the military and “essential” workers, to control the damage.
  • Third, bioweapons are very cheap and easy to fabricate. Anyone with access to a good high school chemistry lab is in business. There’s no need for expensive and tricky U-235 or, for that matter, any of the junk toys the Pentagon spends hundreds of billions on.
  • Fourth, bioweapons don’t need sophisticated delivery systems; again, no need for B-2s, B-52s, cruise missiles, ICBMs, or any of that. A sick tourist or two, or a few packages sent in the mail, can get the job done.
  • Fifth, bioweapons, whether they’re viruses or bacteria, not only offer plausible deniability but the potential to blame a third party. You can launch an attack, and nobody can really be sure who did it. Or even that an attack is, in fact, being launched.
There’s every advantage to biological warfare from an aggressor’s point of view. And, the aggressor doesn’t even have to be a nation-state, which is, of course, another excuse for governments to further clamp down on their populations, as COVID has shown. Guns are good self-defense weapons, and governments are trying to eliminate them; basement biowar labs are strictly offensive. Imagine the bureaucratic enforcement possibilities.
International Man: In addition, Deagel included a lengthy disclaimer, which states:
“After COVID, we can draw two major conclusions:
  1. The Western world success model has been built over societies with no resilience that can barely withstand any hardship, even a low-intensity one. It was assumed, but we got the full confirmation beyond any doubt.
  2. The COVID crisis will be used to extend the life of this dying economic system through the so-called Great Reset.”
Doug, you’ve written extensively about the economic, political, cultural, and social decline in the US—long before it became a popular topic of discussion.
Has anything changed in your perspective on the future of the US?
Doug Casey: No. I’m afraid the election of actual Bolsheviks in 2020—and I don’t use that term lightly—has sealed its fate. Not to mention that the nomenklatura in most major cities and states are cut from the same cloth.
In point of fact, the US is on such a self-destructive path that the Chinese don’t have to do anything in order to win. All they need to do is lay back and be quiet. The West is destroying itself.
As for this COVID crisis, it impresses me as 80% hysteria, a bad flu season that has been blown out of proportion. It’s well known (insofar as anything can be known, considering the abysmal quality of reporting and the extreme politicization of the issue) that COVID mainly affects the elderly, the sick, and the obese. The average age of descendants is 80; however, the ages of those who die are rarely mentioned. The media reports the number of COVID cases constantly, but that’s as meaningless as counting who gets a common cold. Anyway, aren’t all those who get infected become immune? A virus—like the Hong Kong flu, the Asian flu, the Bird flu, and the Swine flu—goes viral, then goes away. Even the Spanish flu, which was actually serious, came and went without destroying the economy. Nonetheless, the public has been so terrorized that they’re panicking to take potentially dangerous experimental injections. Even though there are numerous cheap drugs that can mitigate the virus after diagnosis, they’re never prescribed. The opinions of physicians and world-class scientists who differ with Fauci—an overpaid lifelong government employee—are actively suppressed. However, this is a whole different subject.
There is one thing I question about Deagel’s statement that you quoted: “The COVID crisis will be used to extend the life of this dying economic system through something called the Great Reset.” That’s a very odd statement because the crisis isn’t extending the life of the dying economic system. It’s putting the final nail in its coffin. It would be nice to hear how they figure that out, as COVID seems to be medically vastly overblown. The Great Reset has nothing to do with preserving the current economic system; it’s about formalizing a new one.
Here’s a wild and crazy thought. What if the real problem isn’t so much the COVID virus itself.

Long article click above link if interested
#2
Fear not. Deagel has been just as wrong before as it is right now. They made a dire prediction substantially the same as this one in 2014, which failed miserably to materialize at all. I don't even know how they manage to stay in business, because their analyses are so fatally flawed. They have the raw numbers on world military might, but they have no clue as to how to analyse those numbers.

Understand I'm not criticizing Doug Casey or "Tyler Durden", I'm criticizing Deagel, and always will until such time as they attempt to approach sanity and rational logic in their analyses.

.
Diogenes was eating bread and lentils for supper. He was seen by the philosopher Aristippus, who lived comfortably by flattering the king.

Said Aristippus, ‘If you would learn to be subservient to the king you would not have to live on lentils.’ Said Diogenes, ‘Learn to live on lentils and you will not have to be subservient to the king.’


#3
A 70% reduction by 2025? That is a bold prediction. 

Not even sure if the Black Death was that effective. 

Maybe everyone moves to the Bahamas or something.
#4
When I first read of the Deagel forecast, my initial conclusion was that their site had been hacked.  Apparently not.  I agree with @"Ninurta" , this "analysis" is hard to believe, it sounds more like fearmongering than anything else.

Bio warfare is a huge roll of the dice.  One can't be certain the "bug" won't mutate and end up being just as lethal to one's own people as everyone else.  Once it is 'out there', the rules of nature dictate what happens.

Casey makes good points, but I always pause when I read people defending Russia's actions regarding Ukraine.  Their core argument boils down to "Ukrainians don't have the right to self-determination".  So, if those making that argument are intellectually honest, then they should have no problem being owned lock, stock, and barrel by, say, the CCP in Beijing ... because self-determination is not something we have a right to.  Big, slippery slope there.  An extension of this idea is that, "really, all of central Europe (excluding, oddly, Germany) doesn't have the right to self determination, and what is NATO doing there, anyway?!" ... too many logical parts missing in this thinking, one of the biggest being the assumption that there can be no geopolitical change from the world as it existed in 1989.

I think, though, sadly, he is correct about the USA.  The wrong people seized power and the rest of the government sat on its collective asses and watched it happen without even raising an objection.

Cheers
[Image: 14sigsepia.jpg]

Location: The lost world, Elsewhen
#5
(04-23-2021, 07:37 AM)F2d5thCav Wrote: Bio warfare is a huge roll of the dice.  One can't be certain the "bug" won't mutate and end up being just as lethal to one's own people as everyone else.  Once it is 'out there', the rules of nature dictate what happens.

Not only that, but if you can engineer a bioweapon to bypass your own population, your opponent can engineer one to TARGET that same population, using the same criteria you used to bypass it.

Quote:Casey makes good points, but I always pause when I read people defending Russia's actions regarding Ukraine.  Their core argument boils down to "Ukrainians don't have the right to self-determination".  So, if those making that argument are intellectually honest, then they should have no problem being owned lock, stock, and barrel by, say, the CCP in Beijing ... because self-determination is not something we have a right to.  Big, slippery slope there.  An extension of this idea is that, "really, all of central Europe (excluding, oddly, Germany) doesn't have the right to self determination, and what is NATO doing there, anyway?!" ... too many logical parts missing in this thinking, one of the biggest being the assumption that there can be no geopolitical change from the world as it existed in 1989.

I think, though, sadly, he is correct about the USA.  The wrong people seized power and the rest of the government sat on its collective asses and watched it happen without even raising an objection.

Cheers

Ukraine is in the Russian sphere of influence. Until the Soviet Union collapsed, it was part of that Union. While Ukraine does have a right to self determination, Russia has more business mucking around in it than, say for example, the US. It's not our neighbor as it is for Russia. last I read, though, Putin is backing off and recalling the massed troops on the border.

NATO is a strange beast to me. It was instituted to counter the Soviets, and when they disappeared, so did the need for NATO. I believe it has outlived it's remit. When they started admitting former Warsaw Pact nations into NATO, I raised an eyebrow,  but when they admitted TURKEY of all nations, I was flabbergasted. Do they not know how far Turkey is from the North Atlantic? And, as a NATO "ally", Turkey has acted decidedly against NATO interests, so I have to wonder why they haven't been kicked out, or why NATO itself has not been dissolved given the number of EU nations now sitting in it.

Whether or not the "wrong" people have seized thee US is, I suppose, a matter of one's perspective. There is a very vocal minority here who seem to think the "right" people have seized control. What I find most perplexing is the notion that the rest of the government sat on their COLLECTIVE asses... it's Collectivists who have seized power! And that is one of the main problems with individualism - collectives have the numbers to eat us individualists one by one unless we can find a way to make common cause against them than doesn't do violence to the concept of individualism.

I am aware of the Deagel problem because a few years ago I made a thread at TOS regarding a previous failed prediction they made. It was pretty far out there, too. They seem to do this when Collectivists are in power in the US, and that is one of the things that makes me think they are a propaganda outlet, promotion fear based "information" rather than a logical analysis.

Propaganda is propaganda, whether it is Right Wing or Left Wing. One is as dangerous as the other, and especially if they can't color within the lines of logic, they just end up making a bad situation worse.

.
Diogenes was eating bread and lentils for supper. He was seen by the philosopher Aristippus, who lived comfortably by flattering the king.

Said Aristippus, ‘If you would learn to be subservient to the king you would not have to live on lentils.’ Said Diogenes, ‘Learn to live on lentils and you will not have to be subservient to the king.’


#6
Quote:When they started admitting former Warsaw Pact nations into NATO, I raised an eyebrow,

I would ask, "why?"

This is the slippery slope I mentioned.  The argument here, as it is often cast in the discussion forums of the internet, always assume that NATO was the sole actor in the actions of these sovereign states.

But NATO was only one part of it.  The other part, and much more important IMO, was the decision of these sovereign states to join NATO.

Arguing against that is another version of saying, "those peoples don't have a right to self-determination".  To which I say, "of course they do."

This is the "1989 geopolitical trap" I brought up.  It ain't 1989 anymore.  Those countries got out from under Russia's thumb and are now conducting their own foreign and domestic policy.  Russia can certainly attempt to influence those policies ... and the Russians do that, using the natural gas supply among other measures.  But the Russians don't have a natural right to overtly control the countries of central Europe, their nationalist desires notwithstanding.

Here is Russia's real problem:  like the German government, the Russian government doesn't understand (or, want to practice) the concept of peer relationships with other countries.  They are both still stuck in the "dominate or be dominated" mindset.  The peoples of central Europe have been dominated by one or both of these powers for centuries (and still are, economically), and they're tired of it.  Thus, they adopt policies, some of which exist only to thwart and spite Russian attempts at domination.  The Russian elites are too proud to admit their approach is manipulative and paternalistic, and so the tension between the various countries remains with only brief respites.

There is a lot of "but, Russia's outlook!" tripe on the internet.  Very little of it looks at the basic mistakes being made by Russia's leadership.

I grasp the Russians are sensitive about national security issues ... but every country is.  The handful of brigades that NATO has in central Europe are not capable of mounting an invasion of Russia, and the Russian leadership knows that.  One might wonder why Russia so often makes an issue of NATO's presence in central Europe ... but is so curiously silent about the deployment of the People's Liberation Army along the long common border with China.  Frankly, I think Siberia is more at risk of a Chinese takeover than western Russia is from a NATO-led invasion.

Cheers
[Image: 14sigsepia.jpg]

Location: The lost world, Elsewhen
#7
(04-24-2021, 03:49 PM)F2d5thCav Wrote:
Quote:When they started admitting former Warsaw Pact nations into NATO, I raised an eyebrow,

I would ask, "why?"

This is the slippery slope I mentioned.  The argument here, as it is often cast in the discussion forums of the internet, always assume that NATO was the sole actor in the actions of these sovereign states.

But NATO was only one part of it.  The other part, and much more important IMO, was the decision of these sovereign states to join NATO.

Arguing against that is another version of saying, "those peoples don't have a right to self-determination".  To which I say, "of course they do."

Because they were FORMER Warsaw Pact. It's because I did then, and still do, question to validity of the continued existence of NATO in the wake of already having vanquished their foe. When the war is done, it's time for the Old Boys Club, not time to seek out a new enemy because your last one is no more. So, to me, it's not so much a question of self-determination as it is one of relevance.

Quote:This is the "1989 geopolitical trap" I brought up.  It ain't 1989 anymore.  Those countries got out from under Russia's thumb and are now conducting their own foreign and domestic policy.  Russia can certainly attempt to influence those policies ... and the Russians do that, using the natural gas supply among other measures.  But the Russians don't have a natural right to overtly control the countries of central Europe, their nationalist desires notwithstanding.

Quite right. It ISN'T 1989 any more. There is no more Soviet Union or Warsaw Pact. There is no enemy left there - why are they continuing to hold on when there is no longer a target to shoot at?

As far as US meddling in Russian/ Eastern European affairs goes when Russia is no longer any direct threat to us, I am reminded of things like the Cuban Missile Crisis. If we have a right to muck around in Eastern Europe, then Russia also had every right to emplace missiles in Cuba 90 miles off our coast. After all, Cuba was also a sovereign nation with the right of self-determination, but for some strange reason we took umbrage at the Soviets trying to pry open OUR back door. I can see why Russia might take umbrage at us trying to jimmy theirs.

Quote:Here is Russia's real problem:  like the German government, the Russian government doesn't understand (or, want to practice) the concept of peer relationships with other countries.  They are both still stuck in the "dominate or be dominated" mindset.  The peoples of central Europe have been dominated by one or both of these powers for centuries (and still are, economically), and they're tired of it.  Thus, they adopt policies, some of which exist only to thwart and spite Russian attempts at domination.  The Russian elites are too proud to admit their approach is manipulative and paternalistic, and so the tension between the various countries remains with only brief respites.

There is a lot of "but, Russia's outlook!" tripe on the internet.  Very little of it looks at the basic mistakes being made by Russia's leadership.

I grasp the Russians are sensitive about national security issues ... but every country is.  The handful of brigades that NATO has in central Europe are not capable of mounting an invasion of Russia, and the Russian leadership knows that.  One might wonder why Russia so often makes an issue of NATO's presence in central Europe ... but is so curiously silent about the deployment of the People's Liberation Army along the long common border with China.  Frankly, I think Siberia is more at risk of a Chinese takeover than western Russia is from a NATO-led invasion.

Cheers

You're right, Russia has been that way going all the way back to the Rus tribe that founded Kiev. It appears to me that even the people have resigned themselves to governmental Overlords, not just during the Soviet era, but even before that, under the Czar, and before that, and before that.... ad inifinitum. What I question is American involvement in a spat that is not ours. I'd be ok with the US just pulling out of NATO and leaving it to the Europeans to run as they see fit. The UK could do as they see fit as well, despite my belief that it would be to their benefit to extract themselves from NATO as well. That's not my decision to make, it's for the UK to make. Either way, NATO dissolved or the US just extracting itself from NATO, the net effect on the US would be the same, and I'm ok with either possibility. Russians or the Warsaw Pact ain't mine to worry about any more.

It IS somewhat concerning that BidenHarris and many on the Left are beating war drums against Russia, and driving them into the arms of the Chinese. The recent pact between the two is evidence of that, although I doubt Russia has bought into it entirely. One thing the US doesn't need is Russia and the CCP working in concert against us, reopening the Cold War, but that seems to be exactly what BidenHarris and company are determined to set up, with Hillary's overt approval. She's been trying to pick a fight with Russia ever since she got into politics. Big Red Button, anyone?

The recent expansionist tendencies within the CCP could presage a Chinese invasion into Siberia, but as long as Russia is patting China's ass, that eventuality is unlikely - The CCP is bright enough not to upset that delicate and tenuous alliance this early in the game. There is also the strong potential that Russia is just making nice with them to buy time for weapons upgrades and stockpiles, and China may be clued into that, prompting a PLA border massing, just in case. Only time will tell. After all, it hasn't been that long ago that Russia told the CCP "yeah, we know we promised these rockets to you, but we also promised some to India, and they have dibs since you are threatening their border. Your delivery of rockets will come after India is already stocked up".

In any event, I'm a strong believer that neither Russian/ Eastern European relations nor Russian/ CCP relations are any of my business until they start eyeballing the US from across the smoke-filled bar room again as a unit. In that event, things going live with US involvement in Eastern Europe might be on the table again, but until then, not so much I think. At least that would give Russia two fronts to fret over.

It just gripes me that the BidenHarris Regime is setting that whole show up, to the advantage of the CCP and the disadvantage of the US. Makes one wonder just whose side BidenHarris is on.

.
Diogenes was eating bread and lentils for supper. He was seen by the philosopher Aristippus, who lived comfortably by flattering the king.

Said Aristippus, ‘If you would learn to be subservient to the king you would not have to live on lentils.’ Said Diogenes, ‘Learn to live on lentils and you will not have to be subservient to the king.’


#8
Quote:Quite right. It ISN'T 1989 any more. There is no more Soviet Union or Warsaw Pact. There is no enemy left there - why are they continuing to hold on when there is no longer a target to shoot at?


That is a statement you should direct to people who live under the shadow of Russia in central Europe.  Just be prepared to get an earful, because they DO believe their right to self-determination, to include the political blocs and alliances they choose to participate in.

As they see it, their choice is "the West" -- one system with plenty of problems, but -some- rule of law and -some- orderly process; or, to become complete kleptocracies dominated by the kleptocracy in Moscow, with rule of men and arbitrariness in what passes for governance there.

We have all been coached to believe that big countries have a "right" to push small countries around, declare that those countries are part of their "sphere of influence", etc.  But that is nothing but propaganda on the part of the big countries.  The Germans and Russians have tried to completely extinguish the national existence of peoples in central Europe for centuries ... and it doesn't work, no matter how brutal the approach.  The only legacy of the brutality of the last go-round is that the countries of central Europe deeply distrust both Germany and Russia, but realize they have to maintain formal relations while attempting to survive economically ... and so the faces smile at each other at summits even while the national leaderships engage in mutual dislike.

I don't find the continued existence of NATO to be so much a problem as is the EU's desire to set up a parallel military alliance that includes the same countries.  That is a recipe for problems.

That guy interviewed in the OP has been duped by Russian propaganda.  He is all about Russia's perceptions, claims, feelings ... without once wondering about the smaller countries affected by Russian policy ... as in, what do THOSE countries and peoples want?  Russia ain't the only player at the table in these power plays.  Failure to realize other peoples have their own national goals and aspirations is a non-starter.  And that is where Russia consistently fails.  When a neighboring country protests Russian policy, some guy in the Russian Duma opines that "dwarf nations" can be nuked out of existence ... and hears no rebuke from the Moscow kleptocracy for doing so.  Overwhelmingly, Russia's problems are of their own creation, because they are so tone-deaf in dealing with other European countries.  And that -- is no reason for other countries to surrender aspects of their sovereignty.

Quote:As far as US meddling in Russian/ Eastern European affairs goes when Russia is no longer any direct threat to us

This is again something that can be looked at from the standpoint of the former Warsaw Pact countries.

If they choose Russia or Germany as their "big brother" in the international sphere, they know that ultimately, the Russians and the Germans, being neighboring countries, will always make grabs for their manpower, their resources, and their national territory.

The USA offers them a unique option: a "big brother" who is not a European power and operates on their territory purely for the reasons of power projection. Those countries could host 100,000 U.S. troops and never have to worry about being absorbed by the USA. Of course, the existence of this option for these countries infuriates the so-called 'elites' in both Berlin and Moscow. Beware both Russian and German propaganda when it comes to the policy making of the former Warsaw Pact countries.

Cheers
[Image: 14sigsepia.jpg]

Location: The lost world, Elsewhen
#9
(04-25-2021, 07:17 AM)F2d5thCav Wrote: The USA offers them a unique option: a "big brother" who is not a European power and operates on their territory purely for the reasons of power projection.  Those countries could host 100,000 U.S. troops and never have to worry about being absorbed by the USA.  Of course, the existence of this option for these countries infuriates the so-called 'elites' in both Berlin and Moscow.  Beware both Russian and German propaganda when it comes to the policy making of the former Warsaw Pact countries.

Cheers

I think what I'm not getting in this discussion is the WHY of it. WHY is it incumbent on America to provide that to Europe? Where do we get the responsibility or the authority to muck around in the affairs of foreign nations? WHY does the US not have the self-determination to just say no, we're tired of foreign adventurism, and we'll just sit this one out?

WHY are we to guarantee the self determination of others when it is to be denied to us?

Both WWII and the Cold war are long over, so WHY is the US to be denied the self-determination to just stop fighting them?

Power projection? What power? The US doesn't have power any more. We are being run by an imbecile and a whore, and our military is being castrated by them as we speak. We are rapidly approaching the lowest rung on the Third World Nation ladder, and are being overrun ourselves by foreigners, illegal aliens, with the blessing of, and at the invitation of, the BidenHarris Regime. We have no more power to project, so why keep going on as if we do?

.
Diogenes was eating bread and lentils for supper. He was seen by the philosopher Aristippus, who lived comfortably by flattering the king.

Said Aristippus, ‘If you would learn to be subservient to the king you would not have to live on lentils.’ Said Diogenes, ‘Learn to live on lentils and you will not have to be subservient to the king.’


#10
Well, the "why" of it is indeed a good question.

Especially with the Germans and French wanting to crank up an "EU Army" to further their Continental System schemes.  Sounds like a force that should defend Europe (but of course, it won't).

Western Europe could have done more of the heavy lifting for their own defense since the 1960s.  The former Pact countries, of course, didn't get a start on that until the 1990s.  Ironically, at least one of those countries is a significant contributor to NATO, and all of those countries have political outlooks better grounded in reality than that of the ideologues in Brussels.

Dunno.  I think it is better to fight wars abroad rather than on our home turf.  But given changes in warfare, that option will not always be there.

As for our own self-determination, the problem IMO lies in the national power structures -- to include elements other than purely the government.  Too much vested interest from too many parties, and thus we remain entangled in situations far from the USA.

Cheers
[Image: 14sigsepia.jpg]

Location: The lost world, Elsewhen
#11
(04-26-2021, 09:17 AM)F2d5thCav Wrote: Well, the "why" of it is indeed a good question.

Especially with the Germans and French wanting to crank up an "EU Army" to further their Continental System schemes.  Sounds like a force that should defend Europe (but of course, it won't).

Western Europe could have done more of the heavy lifting for their own defense since the 1960s.  The former Pact countries, of course, didn't get a start on that until the 1990s.  Ironically, at least one of those countries is a significant contributor to NATO, and all of those countries have political outlooks better grounded in reality than that of the ideologues in Brussels.

I was under the impression that the EU was supposed to be a purely economic combine, but they do seem to have been steadily moving towards a more political entity, something more like a "United States of Europe". I personally think that would get bad for all involved, but there again, what I think does not count, as I am not European, so I have no say in how they run their shop. I don't know if they haven't learned from the fate of the US experiment, or if they HAVE learned something from it - the US is rapidly evolving from "The United State of America" in to an "American Federal Empire". I find it interesting that the power players of Germany and France are pushing the hardest for a military consolidation to go with the political and economic consolidations, and seem to be dragging the rest of the EU members along with them willing or not.

Quote:Dunno.  I think it is better to fight wars abroad rather than on our home turf.  But given changes in warfare, that option will not always be there.

I used to think that, too. Now what I see is that all the little brushfire wars we fought on other folks' turf during the Cold War have all managed to find their way here, to our turf, anyhow. So I don't see a net gain in it any more. Also, the CCP unchecked militarization of orbital space, against international law, does not bode well for large scale conflicts remaining overseas any more, either. I no longer see the value of force projection when much more force can be projected right back at us.

Quote:As for our own self-determination, the problem IMO lies in the national power structures -- to include elements other than purely the government.  Too much vested interest from too many parties, and thus we remain entangled in situations far from the USA.

Cheers

Why not let the elements with vested interests fight their own wars, rather than using Uncle Sugar as their strong right arm? Uncle Sugar is on life support, and fading fast. If economic entities want to wage wars, why not force them to do it on their own? There always are, and always have been, hordes of fine young men willing to chance their lives for coin. I know that because I was one of 'em. So let those elements hire and finance their own wars, spend their own money on prosecuting them, rather than spending MY money to advance THEIR economic interests?

.
Diogenes was eating bread and lentils for supper. He was seen by the philosopher Aristippus, who lived comfortably by flattering the king.

Said Aristippus, ‘If you would learn to be subservient to the king you would not have to live on lentils.’ Said Diogenes, ‘Learn to live on lentils and you will not have to be subservient to the king.’


#12
I think it was the 2001 Treaty of Nice that put the EU on a political vice solely economic path.  But I could easily be wrong.  I find the history of bureaucratic organizations to be stiflingly boring.

Yeah, the Germans and French are openly dominating the show now.  As long as everyone else is happy with the money they're getting, they'll go along with it.

Cheers
[Image: 14sigsepia.jpg]

Location: The lost world, Elsewhen


Forum Jump:


Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)