Kerry speaks out about Trumps temper tantrum
It's not just Trump. The GOP reps who went to Russia on the 4th of July apparently met with several of the sanctioned Russians, came home, and immediately called for the sanctions which haven't really even been fully implemented to possibly be eased."Germany is captive of Russia"
*Goes and sucks Putin's dick*
= PixelSquish, post: 39495131, member: 321249"]Saw an alert the Trump is now suggesting that Europeans pay 4% of GDP for defense spending
I consider this an insightful opinion piece on the utility of NATO. TLDR version: the things people are complaining about are by design and arguably America's greatest achievement.
https://www.thedailybeast.com/on-th...mp-has-pissed-away-the-pax-americana?ref=wrap
Saw an alert the Trump is now suggesting that Europeans pay 4% of GDP for defense spending
Serious question: if Putin were able to impersonate a US president in a Mission Impossible mask exactly what would he do here that’s different than what Trump is doing?
Every day this shit goes on the pee tape or something to that effect becomes more likely to me.
Trump doing Putin's work. Even if all the NATO countries were paying 2% today Trump would move the goalpost.It's not just Trump. The GOP reps who went to Russia on the 4th of July apparently met with several of the sanctioned Russians, came home, and immediately called for the sanctions which haven't really even been fully implemented to possibly be eased.
They might need their stomachs pumped at this rate.
Trump doing Putin's work. Even if all the NATO countries were paying 2% today Trump would move the goalpost.
Meanwhile zero effort from Trump combating Russia against their worldwide aggression.
It is a good article. I read it and I agree with a lot of points, except for one. Who is paying for it? American security protection has always been a "Transactional Friendship." While praised as possibly one of the greatest peace accords in all of human history (EU/NATO), at no point was the American defensive umbrella over Europe ever out of the goodness of its heart. It had to protect Europe in order to protect its future economic markets. The same is true in Japan and parts of Asia.
The problem now, and you have to take the politics out of this for a sec, is that the cost-benefit of pouring ~$100B a year into European defensive structures on top of experiencing an overall trade deficit with those countries makes it a negative investment on America's part. It's like the division in the corporation that's running in the black. But we still do it, and we borrow extra money to make up for those losses. It's just not sustainable.
I consider this an insightful opinion piece on the utility of NATO. TLDR version: the things people are complaining about are by design and arguably America's greatest achievement.
https://www.thedailybeast.com/on-th...mp-has-pissed-away-the-pax-americana?ref=wrap
Liked the "confirm Hillary met with a Russian agent" one
We could withdraw from NATO today and it would have zero impact on whether there's a future war in Western Europe (it's already failed in that regard in southern and eastern Europe namely former Yugoslavia and Ukraine). It's great that in the Cold War era that NATO might have (emphasis on the might have) prevented a war and created Pax Americana, there's no reason it's needed to sustain peace today in 2018. Europe isn't a bombed out shell from WW2 that needs a paternalistic U.S. with troops stationed across the continent to prevent the Germans starting the next great war. Europe doesn't need the U.S. to protect them against a Russia which they're perfectly capable of defending themselves against in the modern day and who wouldn't directly attack them anyway. The quote from the article "today, neither Europe nor the United States are wealthy or powerful enough, alone, to sustain and expand liberal democracy in a world increasingly dominated by China, Russia, and anarchy" is neither borne out by current events nor the trajectory of history. The governments of China and Russia aren't going to change into liberal democracies no matter whether NATO exists or not, nor will some random country like (insert developing world nation here) choose to vote for a pro-West government over a Hugo Chavez style socialist experiment because of NATO.
I consider this an insightful opinion piece on the utility of NATO. TLDR version: the things people are complaining about are by design and arguably America's greatest achievement.
https://www.thedailybeast.com/on-th...mp-has-pissed-away-the-pax-americana?ref=wrap
This topic appears to have an argument that we're paying a bigger share because peace in Europe matters to us. I agree that it does, but the question becomes... why does it matter MORE to the United States than it would the Europeans themselves? Why, do we desire peace more than they do? I don't see how we have a bigger vested interest in their survival than they themselves should have.What Trump calls a ‘free ride’ for Europe is in fact the cost of an American empire that has guaranteed peace on the bloody European continent—and for the U.S.—for 74 years.
Kerry speaks out about Trumps temper tantrum
He could have the most bombastic parades in American history.So if trump pulls troops from Europe and Korea what will he be doing with that about 100k force?
I cant see any president who makes 100k service men unemployed being particularly popular.
Will you just be stationing them in the US and paying them to march up and down? Because if you do that's not going to reduce your military budgets anyway.
We could withdraw from NATO today and it would have zero impact on whether there's a future war in Western Europe (it's already failed in that regard in southern and eastern Europe namely former Yugoslavia and Ukraine). It's great that in the Cold War era that NATO might have (emphasis on the might have) prevented a war and created Pax Americana, there's no reason it's needed to sustain peace today in 2018. Europe isn't a bombed out shell from WW2 that needs a paternalistic U.S. with troops stationed across the continent to prevent the Germans starting the next great war. Europe doesn't need the U.S. to protect them against a Russia which they're perfectly capable of defending themselves against in the modern day and who wouldn't directly attack them anyway. The quote from the article "today, neither Europe nor the United States are wealthy or powerful enough, alone, to sustain and expand liberal democracy in a world increasingly dominated by China, Russia, and anarchy" is neither borne out by current events nor the trajectory of history. The governments of China and Russia aren't going to change into liberal democracies no matter whether NATO exists or not, nor will some random country like (insert developing world nation here) choose to vote for a pro-West government over a Hugo Chavez style socialist experiment because of NATO.
This topic appears to have an argument that we're paying a bigger share because peace in Europe matters to us. I agree that it does, but the question becomes... why does it matter MORE to the United States than it would the Europeans themselves? Why, do we desire peace more than they do? I don't see how we have a bigger vested interest in their survival than they themselves should have.
Pure bullshit. Putin obviously seeks to restore the former glory of the Soviet Union. He's not particularly squeamish about resorting to military means, either. It's not like the Baltic states would be able to maintain their independence & democratic govts w/o Nato.
get some ability to project force worldwide
As long as Russia is a threat to Europe, and especially the Baltics, etc. then there is a purpose for NATO.
The only reason there is even a discussion about the value of NATO is that Putin's puppet is doing his best to undermine it. Donald says Germany is totally controlled by Russia. This before he goes to Russia himself to get his marching orders. That just proves how important it still is. NATO isn't obsolete, Trump is.