Nobody is hating on young people. I'm pointing out a simple fact: Most of them lack the capacity of studying topics before making a statement. However, turning things to reality here: The new generation that is going out of the university right now, 90% of them, are kids without standards, morals or any sort of proper education.
25+. Lulz.
You would be surprised with the generous ammount of actions that the U.S army does and you're not aware of. You should go check how many forces come to Portugal in order to train with the Portuguese army, as an example. You would be surprised.
-
Banned
Edited: June 25, 2016
-
Field Medic Moderator
Don't mind him. He's only interested in arguing, not the issue itself.
-
Member
Except the issue you are claiming is happening has no evidence that it is actually occurring, there being 40,000 US troops in eastern europe (In case you are unaware, eastern europe is defined as everywhere east of the Ural river/mountains). While there are troops in Portugal, and all over Europe there is not 40,000 US troops in eastern Europe. This article http://www.wsj.com/articles/pentagon...ope-1459324801 states there is only 60,000 in the entirety of Europe, with 4,200 being moved to the eastern lines. Or this article which says there is 5,000 http://sputniknews.com/europe/201606...ern-flank.html or http://www.wsj.com/articles/closing-...sia-1466205268 which states "30,000 U.S., Polish and allied forces", which is the forces of NATO. So, if "your country" consists of all of the following countries:
" Albania, Belgium, Bulgaria, Canada, Croatia, Czech Republic, Denmark, Estonia, France, Germany, Greece, Hungary, Iceland, Italy, Latvia, Lithuania, Luxembourg, Netherlands, Norway, Poland, Portugal, Romania, Slovakia, Slovenia, Spain, Turkey, United Kingdom, United States" then yes, there might be 40,000 combined forces for "your country". Here's another breakdown of the numbers https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United...ry_deployments and here http://i.imgur.com/AdFZjIn.png is a screenshot of the reference material.
And, NATO is not in Eastern Europe for """training""", it is for a deterrent which should be obvious and is the real issue. If you look back in history, everyone has been somewhat scared of Russia in that area and after the recent Crimean conflict (Which, by the way, is one of several conflicts over this specific area involving Russia) even more could happen. Poland requested more troops from NATO because of Russia. Before World War 1, there was at least 3 revolutions where Poland tried to become their own country but Russia came and stomped the revolution each time. Otto Von Bismarck (Spearheaded the creation of Germany) was also afraid of Russia (He was really afraid of angering both France and Russia so tried to keep on good terms with at least one), Napoleon and Hitler both lost to Russia, etc. Stuff from World War 1 to present day I'm not as familiar with, however currently there is still quite some turmoil and Poland/other countries wants help in case something does happen, or show that they have help and deter Russia. The real issue is what is happening between Russia and the eastern European countries, not "oh geez, i heard this dumb rumor about my country doing something that's not actually happening and i gotta grab popcorn".
-
Moderator
Quoting for reference.
-
Member
Was sleeping, woke up, saw this, had to reply.
First off, it is a plan, so no, they aren't here yet. The idea is to position them in Europe and be able to deliver them to the Eastern Europe should an attack come. For this reason there is the plan to put 4 batalions (800-1000 soldiers each) in Baltic States and Poland, as well as "Stryker Brigade" (1000-8000 soldiers). Also, nowhere said that the 30000 are total forces (which means there may be more (and are) elsewhere. Just Germany, UK and France combined have over 600000 ACTIVE personel. By article 5 of NATO treaty, attack on one NATO country is to be consider an attack on all of them, which means not just NATO, but country's national forces are to be sent to the warzone.
Regards the second part, not entirely true - there will be some forces stationed in Eastern Europe, but most of them will be probably stationed in Germany or France, to not provokate Russia any further. Moving to Europe for this reason is true, but not moving to Eastern Europe. The goal is to be able to send all NATO troops + start sending other military personel within 48 hours, although atm the timeframe is 1 week.
Ok, I left the last point as last for a reason - Eastern Europe mainly consists of ex-soviet states, which means, Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, Poland, Romania, Ukraine and Russia. Greece, Serbia etc are Balkan countries. The part on the east of Ural is called ASIA.
-
Field Medic Moderator
Yeah. I said that in the initial post. I'm guessing you just glazed over when you read it?
Anyway, refer to;
-
Member
Mercy's original claim was that there was 40,000 troops from the United States in Eastern Europe """training""" which is not true at all. I know that there is a lot of NATO forces, and they will be spread out, however there is barely 60,000 US troops in Europe, with only ~5,000 that are planned to be in Eastern Europe. The 30,000 is located in just Poland, see third article. I could not find any sources that said ~40,000 US troops and I would expect something that large to at least have one news article. We are talking about Eastern Europe, not every single country in Europe because Mercy claimed there was 40,000 US troops in Eastern Europe. More specifically how many US troops are in Eastern Europe, not how many troops are in the NATO combined. It being a plan even solidifies my point even more, Mercy's claim of 40,000 troops is entirely bull**** and the one about FEMA is from someone who doesn't know what happens in a state of emergency interpreting it on their own without looking at the news or anything.
The last part is my bad, I was tired and got the borders mixed up.
"I was wrong on the internet, but I can never be wrong! Better call him a troll or whatever and reject all sources that say I am blatantly wrong! Oh, I also got to call my blatantly wrong claim an issue but it doesn't exist and there is also a valid reason why there would be any troops but hur dur i heard that my country was sending more troops and that's bad"
I asked for a legitimate source, but then you pointed it out to that instead of actually providing a legitimate one, nevermind three seconds of googling would have shown you were wrong instead of just posted bull****. I said it wasn't happening, after i googled for a source but apparently i'm just arguing because you posted a ******ed claim without even looking it up to see if it is even true. The FEMA one was just an overall lack of knowledge. I guess you just wanted to compete with UK for ****ups or whatever the ****, because that post of yours was incredibly dumb and all bull ****Edited: June 25, 2016
-
Moderator
This reference never gets old.
-
Member
Once again, sapphire's "Issues" don't even exist, but both you and her can never be wrong and when you are you just resort to posting bull ****. This happens every time, because every time you are wrong
-
Field Medic Moderator
I'll quote this time!
I said myself that it's hearsay and that I could be wrong.
Reading comprehension is hard.
I specifically stated that my source was hearsay, therefore not legitimate. Is it really that difficult to understand?
I even went and made that a bit more clear in a later post.
But, I guess I'm writing in a language foreign to you. Sorry for that I guess.
All you're doing right now is picking a fight. You do realize this isn't one you're going to win, right?
Feel free to point out where I'm wrong on a point that I didn't already say, myself, that I could be wrong.
Just keep proving me right.
-
Member
You said it could be wrong, I wanted to make it was actually wrong, however all attempts at that has resulted in you sticking your fingers in your ear and screaming "LALALALALA" or whatever the ****. Even though you said it could be wrong, any attempts of me saying it's not true has resulted in that and apparently i'm just arguing to argue, which isn't true. And you even call your post an "issue", but I proved it's actually not an issue. Let's go back in time and see what happened:
You originally posted your issue, I asked where you heard it from, you replied this:
I said then it most likely isn't true at all, and at this point I even took the three seconds to google it. However, at this point you became frustrated and said I was just arguing. Do you remember that game you used to play in kindergarten and elementary school called telephone? Where one person said something and then it went around in a circle and at the end the person revealed what they heard, and 99% of the time they would go from volleyball to Ukraine or whatever. Spreading stuff by mouth like that and never bothering to look it up is where **** tons of misinformation comes from, see rattlesnake/bullsnake hybrid I talked about earlier. It happens all of the time, however apparently these people you know in specific reasons are a more reliable source than the pentagon, etc, when a troop movement that big would have news articles referring to posts on social media if it was undercover operation, however there currently are public operations that are happening/planned to happen which is nowhere near the scale you are talking about.
Then, after you post your "reference", which kind of hints that I'm wrong and i'm just arguing, I prove that these claims are actually wrong. Not maybe wrong, but actually wrong. Maybe you don't understand that there is actually a difference between actually wrong and "i might be wrong", but there is quite a big difference. Perhaps your reading comprehension and critical thinking needs more work? I fully understood that you said they were possibly wrong, however something being possibly wrong and leaving it open ended causes bull**** like this to spread even more, see the telephone game or your post in the first place
-
Field Medic Moderator
You do realize your persistence on pursuing a non-issue indicates otherwise, right?
-
Moderator
Picture related.
-
Member
I'll just leave this here.
Checking 3rd article (wiki) there are no more than 2000 there. As long as Germany =/= Poland, of course. Either way, Mercy said she could be wrong and you did pick up on it like an a-hole. The point is, there are a LOT of US soldiers in Europe already.
Also, I believe, both of you mix up "located in Eastern Europe" with "to help Eastern Europe". First case would mean they are actually there all time, the second case - they may be located elsewhere, but, should it be needed, they will come to Eastern Europe.
-
Banned
I would love to see London getting independence and western Europe getting president Sadiq Khan.
*laughs in eastern European*
Spoiler:Show
Quote
