EPTI'm not sure what Europe has paid on Iraq & Afghanistan but given the fact that the total cost of the wars is estimated to be 4-6 trillion dollars and that such adventures wouldn't be happening any more with a less interventionist United States we might as well be all making profit.
US Politics Mega-thread - Page 1168
| Forum Index > Closed |
Read the rules in the OP before posting, please. In order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a re-read to refresh your memory! The vast majority of you are contributing in a healthy way, keep it up! NOTE: When providing a source, explain why you feel it is relevant and what purpose it adds to the discussion if it's not obvious. Also take note that unsubstantiated tweets/posts meant only to rekindle old arguments can result in a mod action. | ||
|
Nyxisto
Germany6287 Posts
I'm not sure what Europe has paid on Iraq & Afghanistan but given the fact that the total cost of the wars is estimated to be 4-6 trillion dollars and that such adventures wouldn't be happening any more with a less interventionist United States we might as well be all making profit. | ||
|
{CC}StealthBlue
United States41117 Posts
| ||
|
aksfjh
United States4853 Posts
On July 15 2014 07:00 Nyxisto wrote: Let's say Europe would cover all foreign aid, which in 2012 was about 50 billion plus another 50 billion for the IMF, and let's say the EU increases their military spending by another 100 billion. That's about 1.2% of Europe's economic output. I don't think that's actually that much. That's a 4.5-6% increase in central government spending though.Source Something tells me that's a cost much of the EU wouldn't want to bring to its citizens, nor would the "economic powerhouses" want to foot the entire bill. | ||
|
Nyxisto
Germany6287 Posts
It's a little hard to find concrete numbers for single countries, but this article claims that the Afghanistan war has cost the UK alone 40 billion dollars. | ||
|
{CC}StealthBlue
United States41117 Posts
WASHINGTON -- Former Vice President Dick Cheney said Monday that President Barack Obama is "devastating" the U.S. military and needs to divert more resources away from domestic priorities such as rebuilding roads and making sure low-income people can get food. During an event sponsored by Politico, Cheney said the next president needs to "turn around the whole trend" of cutting defense dollars. "That ought to be our top priority for spending. Not food stamps, not highways or anything else," Cheney said. "Your No. 1 responsibility as president is to support and defend the Constitution of the United States. [Obama] is the commander-in-chief and he's absolutely devastating the United States military today.” Source | ||
|
oneofthem
Cayman Islands24199 Posts
| ||
|
Livelovedie
United States492 Posts
On July 15 2014 07:24 oneofthem wrote: primary consequence should be in east asia with japan rearming etc. i'm fine with leaving europe to fend for themselves. What's wrong with Japan rearming? | ||
|
Yoav
United States1874 Posts
On July 15 2014 07:24 oneofthem wrote: i'm fine with leaving europe to fend for themselves. There are dark days when I wonder if we really ought to. It's the children playing by a cliff argument. I really don't think Europe would step up military spending, they'd just find themselves at the mercy of more aggressive military powers. If we really trusted them to do their part in defending the free world, we would have eased off on military spending and deployment long ago. But the pax Americana is a real thing. American and Soviet might kept interstate conflicts to a remarkably low level (historically speaking) since the end of WWII. The idea that war has been phased out because of anything other than that hegemony is impossibly naive, and betrays a total failure to take a long view of history. But it is a frighteningly common idea across Europe. | ||
|
aksfjh
United States4853 Posts
The fact that Japan, Korea, and China have always been a bit uneasy around one another (and very prone to war)... | ||
|
Livelovedie
United States492 Posts
On July 15 2014 07:33 aksfjh wrote: The fact that Japan, Korea, and China have always been a bit uneasy around one another (and very prone to war)... That sounds like the equivalent of saying germany will invade poland if they rearm. | ||
|
xDaunt
United States17988 Posts
| ||
|
Nyxisto
Germany6287 Posts
On July 15 2014 07:31 Yoav wrote: The idea that war has been phased out because of anything other than that hegemony is impossibly naive, and betrays a total failure to take a long view of history. But it is a frighteningly common idea across Europe. From many of these posts you guys make it sounds like Europe is some kind of helpless toddler. Europe's military capabilities are only small compared to the US. Objectively we're probably relatively sufficient. Given the fact that the US is responsible for 40% of the worldwide military expenditures while only producing 20% of the worlds GDP, I think it's more fitting to say that the US has gone a little wild on the military side of things. | ||
|
Livelovedie
United States492 Posts
On July 15 2014 07:37 xDaunt wrote: Japan rearming isn't the root problem. Japan is only rearming because 1) China is rapidly militarizing, 2) China is becoming ever more aggressive with its neighbors, and 3) Japan has decided that it can't rely entirely upon the US to defend it anymore. Well yes, but i still don't see how Japan remaining unarmed changes those things. I really can't see Chinese aggression moving past the stealing of some uninhabited islands. I mean hell, Russia grabbed Crimea, and there still wasn't a large scale war. | ||
|
xDaunt
United States17988 Posts
On July 15 2014 07:39 Nyxisto wrote: From many of these posts you guys make it sounds like Europe is some kind of helpless toddler. Europe's military capabilities are only small compared to the US. Objectively we're probably relatively sufficient. Given the fact that the US is responsible for 40% of the worldwide military expenditures while only producing 20% of the worlds GDP, I think it's more fitting to say that the US has gone a little wild on the military side of things. Very bluntly, we're subsidizing global security. However, I think that's going to change in the near future. Budget constraints, war weariness, and global ingratitude have taken their toll. | ||
|
oneofthem
Cayman Islands24199 Posts
| ||
|
xDaunt
United States17988 Posts
On July 15 2014 07:40 Livelovedie wrote: Well yes, but i still don't see how Japan remaining unarmed changes those things. It doesn't. My point is that Japan rearming is a reaction to the changing reality of the Western Pacific. | ||
|
Livelovedie
United States492 Posts
On July 15 2014 07:42 oneofthem wrote: ...japan rearming isn't to say japan will go to wars of conquest again. given the tension in the regioni it'll rise tension even further. they probably won't break out into open war but the situation will be more dynamite. Maybe, or it might ensure mutually assured destruction and less military action. | ||
|
Nyxisto
Germany6287 Posts
| ||
|
TheMooseHeed
United Kingdom535 Posts
On July 15 2014 07:31 Yoav wrote: There are dark days when I wonder if we really ought to. It's the children playing by a cliff argument. I really don't think Europe would step up military spending, they'd just find themselves at the mercy of more aggressive military powers. If we really trusted them to do their part in defending the free world, we would have eased off on military spending and deployment long ago. But the pax Americana is a real thing. American and Soviet might kept interstate conflicts to a remarkably low level (historically speaking) since the end of WWII. The idea that war has been phased out because of anything other than that hegemony is impossibly naive, and betrays a total failure to take a long view of history. But it is a frighteningly common idea across Europe. Is this what the majority of Americans actually believe? | ||
|
oneofthem
Cayman Islands24199 Posts
On July 15 2014 07:44 Livelovedie wrote: Maybe, or it might ensure mutually assured destruction and less military action. far more volatility. it's not really about actual land lost or gained, but change in disposition on both sides. but tbh there is 0 chance of u.s. not backing japan given all the official treaties. they just want to rearm regardless of the u.s. being there. | ||
| ||
