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.
On October 05 2016 11:02 plasmidghost wrote: How hard would it be for the US, with a coalition of international forces, to rebuild Syria after the civil war is over in exchange for their natural gas reserves? Let's face it, the US would never help Syria without gaining access to those sweet, sweet resources
Foreign driven nation building didn't work in Iraq, wouldn't work in Syria. It would be a fiasco all over again, with the ensuring rise in terrorism and so on. Hands off and helping them rebuild when and how they ask for help is the only way.
I agree with helping our allies, but I saw that apparently the US spends way more of a percentage on military compared to other NATO countries, with most of them being under the agreement of 2%, is there a way to force them to hold up to their agreements?
On October 05 2016 11:05 plasmidghost wrote: I agree with helping our allies, but I saw that apparently the US spends way more of a percentage on military compared to other NATO countries, with most of them being under the agreement of 2%, is there a way to force them to hold up to their agreements?
yes, spend less ourselves.
also the 2% isn't a formal agreement in the treaty or anything. mostly the US spends a lot on its military that it really doesn't need to at all.
On October 05 2016 11:05 plasmidghost wrote: I agree with helping our allies, but I saw that apparently the US spends way more of a percentage on military compared to other NATO countries, with most of them being under the agreement of 2%, is there a way to force them to hold up to their agreements?
No? It's basically just a treaty in which they proclaim to make an effort to spend 2% of their GDP on military. It's pretty non-committal.
On October 05 2016 11:05 plasmidghost wrote: I agree with helping our allies, but I saw that apparently the US spends way more of a percentage on military compared to other NATO countries, with most of them being under the agreement of 2%, is there a way to force them to hold up to their agreements?
Two things. Firstly, it's a guideline, not a rule. Secondly, it's a commitment to the North Atlantic zone, not the world. That's why allies such as Australia aren't in NATO, they're in other pacts. The fact that the US spends a portion of its budget garrisoning Japan does not help American NATO allies one iota. For an apples to apples comparison you'd really need to assess the numbers for meeting NATO commitments. Germany has a lot of NATO commitments, the United States has a lot of non NATO commitments, you can't just do a comparison of overall %s.
The US could coerce other NATO nations to spend more on their military - but it's not in the interests of the US to do that. See my earlier NATO post about neoconservative policy.
On October 05 2016 11:05 plasmidghost wrote: I agree with helping our allies, but I saw that apparently the US spends way more of a percentage on military compared to other NATO countries, with most of them being under the agreement of 2%, is there a way to force them to hold up to their agreements?
I wish the candidates would at least attack each other. all they're doing is attacking the main candidates; I want to know what these guys defects/problems are. I know pence has a bunch of baggage, I'd assume kaine has at least some; but that's not coming up at all.
On October 05 2016 11:09 zlefin wrote: I wish the candidates would at least attack each other. all they're doing is attacking the main candidates; I want to know what these guys defects/problems are. I know pence has a bunch of baggage, I'd assume kaine has at least some; but that's not coming up at all.
problem is no one cares about these guys so it isn't worth bothering
On October 05 2016 11:09 LegalLord wrote: The US could coerce other NATO nations to spend more on their military - but it's not in the interests of the US to do that. See my earlier NATO post about neoconservative policy.
On October 05 2016 11:09 zlefin wrote: I wish the candidates would at least attack each other. all they're doing is attacking the main candidates; I want to know what these guys defects/problems are. I know pence has a bunch of baggage, I'd assume kaine has at least some; but that's not coming up at all.
problem is no one cares about these guys so it isn't worth bothering
I care! and I have good reason to care. these guys might be president.
EPT
