| 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. | ||
|
Danglars
United States12133 Posts
On March 20 2017 00:07 Blitzkrieg0 wrote: You can probably figure it out by looking at social media. Just given the two cultural camps overlap with two ideological camps and the intense divide between Hilary and Trump, it's remarkably easy. Even a single tweet or like on a firearms story is a huge indicator. You can run this experiment yourself with people you're friends with but don't really know and check your own correlation. | ||
KwarK
United States43271 Posts
On March 20 2017 02:17 Danglars wrote: Do you at least register how insulting it is to spend so much on defense and our military alliances can't even meet a 2% target? Because I'm not on board with much of Trump's rhetoric on NATO, but I do know something has to change over there. We provide three quarters of funding, and only four countries at last check hit 2%, all the while the European nations included total more population and GDP than us? Hardly. And anyone not sufficiently partisan should know it. Speaking of which, people who's minds are not made up may read more here. The US is the equivalent of a Bernie Sanders supporter spamming "MATCH ME! BERNIE CAN STILL WIN!" on facebook and then later on going to his friends and saying "hey, so I notice you didn't match me yet, that's cool, I donated for you, here's what you owe". Here's an idea, why doesn't the US match Germany, rather than the other way around? | ||
|
Karis Vas Ryaar
United States4396 Posts
| ||
|
zlefin
United States7689 Posts
some nations just don't have enemies that call for much military expenditure. http://data.worldbank.org/indicator/MS.MIL.XPND.GD.ZS most of european NATO doesn't even really need 2% at all; their only plausible military enemy is russia, which they already substantially outspend and outman. | ||
|
Toadesstern
Germany16350 Posts
On March 20 2017 02:17 Danglars wrote: Do you at least register how insulting it is to spend so much on defense and our military alliances can't even meet a 2% target? Because I'm not on board with much of Trump's rhetoric on NATO, but I do know something has to change over there. We provide three quarters of funding, and only four countries at last check hit 2%, all the while the European nations included total more population and GDP than us? Hardly. And anyone not sufficiently partisan should know it. Speaking of which, people who's minds are not made up may read more here. here's the thing. I don't think a lot of people in Germany want Germany to spend drastically more on defense. I don't think a lot of people in Germany want US bases and US soldiers in Germany. It's probably ranging all the way from slightly against it to "meh, whatever" to slightly in favor of it depending on who you ask but I don't know anyone who strongly believes we need a lot of US bases/soldiers in Germany. So like Kwark said, especially with such things as the CIA reveal from a couple weeks ago etc, why does it have to be Germany matching the US in that regard instead of just the US putting their bases and CIA operations elsewhere if they feel like they're not getting enough out of it? Because they know they're basicly renting those and the US is paying to have those locations available to them. That's literally the cost of being a superpower and I don't think anyone in east Europe cares about your expenses in the middle east, eastern asia or whatever else that's all included in your defense numbers because you want to be just that. | ||
|
LegalLord
United States13779 Posts
On March 20 2017 02:17 Danglars wrote: Do you at least register how insulting it is to spend so much on defense and our military alliances can't even meet a 2% target? Because I'm not on board with much of Trump's rhetoric on NATO, but I do know something has to change over there. We provide three quarters of funding, and only four countries at last check hit 2%, all the while the European nations included total more population and GDP than us? Hardly. And anyone not sufficiently partisan should know it. Speaking of which, people who's minds are not made up may read more here. I wanted to draw attention to this comment on the article: Let's not pretend that the US fell ass-backwards into this position. Following WW2 the US set out deliberately to gain military hegemony over the entire western world. All nations, through NATO, were required to submit their militaries to US command (despite the occasional token foreign commander), making them a de facto branch of US foreign policy...a policy often quite foreign indeed to European left-leaning democracies. Can anyone blame other countries for letting their armies wither on the vine under those conditions, when there were tempting (and expensive) social programs to be enacted? Meanwhile the US military-industrial complex grew and grew. Until recently the US was quite content to let allied militaries atrophy, more business for their own and profits for the supporting industries. Which begs the question, why is the situation changing now? True, the US is effectively bankrupt, but the only remaining large-scale industry in the country is weapons/defence. If allies start defending themselves and the US is obliged to withdraw, it can only mean a further blow to their domestic economy...unless they gin up a new conflict someplace. While I don't endorse the comment in full, it makes the good point that the current situation isn't just people leeching off the US - this is by design a US-dominated system. And it can certainly be argued that the EU, a project that is closely tied to NATO in many ways, often bears a lot of the brunt for the fallout of US-dominated actions. The question is, of course, if Americans still want that arrangement. And increasingly since Iraq, the answer has been "no." It might take the FP apparatus a while to catch up to that fact but it's clearly the case that Trump's proposition of making others pay their fair share pursues a more aggressive retrenchment than Obama, who was already doing the same. Though Trump did fuck up the Asia pivot so the US has fewer options now, it's clear that they were headed towards isolationism much more than in the past. Furthermore, NATO grew so big that it is perhaps collapsing under its own weight. Over the past two decades it's been adding commitments like there's no tomorrow, in a way that starts to undermine the core of the alliance. The "historical argument" for its existence has to come to terms with the fact that it no longer serves the purpose it once did. Also, Trump changes his mind ten times a day. I don't buy a commitment to NATO being permanent. He will just give mixed signals for the next four years. | ||
|
{CC}StealthBlue
United States41117 Posts
| ||
|
Gorsameth
Netherlands21963 Posts
On March 20 2017 02:53 LegalLord wrote: I wanted to draw attention to this comment on the article: While I don't endorse the comment in full, it makes the good point that the current situation isn't just people leeching off the US - this is by design a US-dominated system. And it can certainly be argued that the EU, a project that is closely tied to NATO in many ways, often bears a lot of the brunt for the fallout of US-dominated actions. The question is, of course, if Americans still want that arrangement. And increasingly since Iraq, the answer has been "no." It might take the FP apparatus a while to catch up to that fact but it's clearly the case that Trump's proposition of making others pay their fair share pursues a more aggressive retrenchment than Obama, who was already doing the same. Though Trump did fuck up the Asia pivot so the US has fewer options now, it's clear that they were headed towards isolationism much more than in the past. Furthermore, NATO grew so big that it is perhaps collapsing under its own weight. Over the past two decades it's been adding commitments like there's no tomorrow, in a way that starts to undermine the core of the alliance. The "historical argument" for its existence has to come to terms with the fact that it no longer serves the purpose it once did. Also, Trump changes his mind ten times a day. I don't buy a commitment to NATO being permanent. He will just give mixed signals for the next four years. I largely agree with both your post and the one you quote, but lets not call Trump's heading 'isolationism'. You don't need to spend another 54 billion on the military when you want to withdraw from the world. Or calling for war with Mexico and North Korea (it seems Seoul, a city of 10 million has become an acceptable casualty in his mind). The only isolationism Trump is acting on is the one where he insults every leader in the world. | ||
|
LegalLord
United States13779 Posts
On March 20 2017 03:16 Gorsameth wrote: I largely agree with both your post and the one you quote, but lets not call Trump's heading 'isolationism'. You don't need to spend another 54 billion on the military when you want to withdraw from the world. Or calling for war with Mexico and North Korea (it seems Seoul, a city of 10 million has become an acceptable casualty in his mind). The only isolationism Trump is acting on is the one where he insults every leader in the world. America is generally headed towards isolationism since Iraq. Whether it's Obama's "measured withdrawal" (with, to be fair, its own set of fuckups and reversals) or Trump and his game of nonsense, America has generally pushed towards retrenchment. But at the same time we have to prove how big and buff our military is which makes for a really stupid situation more often than not.. | ||
|
{CC}StealthBlue
United States41117 Posts
House Speaker Paul Ryan said Sunday he's seeking changes to the Republican health care bill to provide more assistance to people in their 50s and 60s. “We believe we should have even more assistance — and that’s one of the things we’re looking at — for that person in their 50s and 60s because they experience higher health care costs," the Wisconsin Republican told Chris Wallace on "Fox News Sunday." Ryan's comments came in the wake of a Congressional Budget Office analysis showing that older people could pay higher premiums under the GOP bill. Ryan expressed skepticism about the CBO analysis but said his leadership team is looking at more ways to help older people under the new plan. "The CBO looked at a little piece of the issue, when we know the secretary of [the Department of Health and Human Services] will help bring market freedom and regulatory relief to the insurance markets to dramatically lower the price of the plan for the 50- and 60-year-olds," Ryan said. "But even with that, we think we should be offering more assistance than what the bill currently does." Moderates in Congress have urged congressional leaders to do more to curb rising costs. In a Facebook post Saturday night, Rep. Brian Fitzpatrick (R-Pa.) said he wouldn't vote for the bill in its current form, calling rising premiums "unsustainable." "If we accept the status quo, our health care system will collapse and all of us will suffer as a result," he wrote. The speaker also confirmed that work is proceeding on a number of other amendments ahead of an expected Thursday floor vote, including boosting tax credits for low-income and older people, allowing states to impose work requirements for able-bodied Medicaid recipients and allowing states to accept fixed block-grant dollars for Medicaid. Source | ||
|
m4ini
4215 Posts
On March 20 2017 02:17 Danglars wrote: Do you at least register how insulting it is to spend so much on defense and our military alliances can't even meet a 2% target? Because I'm not on board with much of Trump's rhetoric on NATO, but I do know something has to change over there. We provide three quarters of funding, and only four countries at last check hit 2%, all the while the European nations included total more population and GDP than us? Hardly. And anyone not sufficiently partisan should know it. Speaking of which, people who's minds are not made up may read more here. So does that mean the US picks up the tab for the costs of refugees that are coming to europe rather than the US from a region that you're (sometimes fully, sometimes partially) responsible for making a hellhole? .. no? Well. Feels a bit hypocritical to me personally to go ahead criticising not enough spending on military while not taking into account that certain european countries pick up the tab for the US in regards to the aftermaths of what you guys constantly started in the last decade. | ||
|
Sermokala
United States14048 Posts
| ||
|
m4ini
4215 Posts
On March 20 2017 04:10 Sermokala wrote: As long as Europeans admit that they caused the problem with their handling of the breakup of the ottoman empire. Thank god that doesn't come off as grasping for straws now. Of course europeans are responsible for the US lying to the world, starting another war destroying the one thing that held the middle east somewhat together. Who else would be. | ||
|
LegalLord
United States13779 Posts
On March 20 2017 04:08 m4ini wrote: So does that mean the US picks up the tab for the costs of refugees that are coming to europe rather than the US from a region that you're (sometimes fully, sometimes partially) responsible for making a hellhole? .. no? Well. Feels a bit hypocritical to me personally to go ahead criticising not enough spending on military while not taking into account that certain european countries pick up the tab for the US in regards to the aftermaths of what you guys constantly started in the last decade. I generally agree with the idea that the US is being hypocritical here on the money matter. My post above generally makes that case. But as for your specific example, can you really say that the US is responsible for the way the refugee crisis went? Sure, American FP ventures have a lot to do with why refugees were created to begin with. But who actually made the decision to take them? | ||
|
m4ini
4215 Posts
On March 20 2017 04:13 LegalLord wrote: I generally agree with the idea that the US is being hypocritical here on the money matter. My post above generally makes that case. But as for your specific example, can you really say that the US is responsible for the way the refugee crisis went? Sure, American FP ventures have a lot to do with why refugees were created to begin with. But who actually made the decision to take them? First of all, do you think "syrian refugees" are the only thing i meant there? How many do you think fled Afghanistan or Iraq, Pakistan etc? I'm not talking the "crisis" (i assume you mean syria) alone. In regards to "who made the decision to take them", i guess a better person than me. I personally wouldn't have, but i do understand that they have to go somewhere. If you argue that you, as a syrian, would pick up a gun and fight against whoever, props to you. If "syria" were to happen here, i'd flee. | ||
|
KwarK
United States43271 Posts
On March 20 2017 04:10 Sermokala wrote: As long as Europeans admit that they caused the problem with their handling of the breakup of the ottoman empire. That ceased to be attributable to us after you reined us in at Suez. The Middle East remained an Anglo-French sphere of influence until then. The only European legacy of the region these days is Israel and Jordan. When the United States decided they wanted European economic interests out they kicked out the rest of it too. | ||
|
LegalLord
United States13779 Posts
| ||
|
opisska
Poland8852 Posts
On March 20 2017 04:13 LegalLord wrote: I generally agree with the idea that the US is being hypocritical here on the money matter. My post above generally makes that case. But as for your specific example, can you really say that the US is responsible for the way the refugee crisis went? Sure, American FP ventures have a lot to do with why refugees were created to begin with. But who actually made the decision to take them? I guess the US thread is a safer place so state that "someone made the decision to take refugees" than the EU one, because the Americans are less likely to see through the bullshit? So once again: while there was some will to accept refugees shown by the EU leaders, there was never really any other option to begin with. We in Europe have enough decency that we do not shoot or drown civilians on sight and the nature of the maritime borders make it physically impossible to prevent their entry otherwise. Yeah, I also think that we should heed our responsibilities in the relevant international treaties, where we have agreed to provide support to refugees of war, but even if we said "fuck it, not our problem", we would still be facing the fact that the refugees were landing on our soil every day and night ... | ||
|
LegalLord
United States13779 Posts
On March 20 2017 04:22 opisska wrote: I guess the US thread is a safer place so state that "someone made the decision to take refugees" than the EU one, because the Americans are less likely to see through the bullshit? So once again: while there was some will to accept refugees shown by the EU leaders, there was never really any other option to begin with. We in Europe have enough decency that we do not shoot or drown civilians on sight and the nature of the maritime borders make it physically impossible to prevent their entry otherwise. Yeah, I also think that we should heed our responsibilities in the relevant international treaties, where we have agreed to provide support to refugees of war, but even if we said "fuck it, not our problem", we would still be facing the fact that the refugees were landing on our soil every day and night ... The matter's come up in both threads very frequently. But the topic came up right here right now so... yeah. As for what to do: shoot them, deport them, set up refugee camps where it is cheaper to take care of a mass influx of refugees, take them at your own peril, or any other choice. It's your call since it's the union y'all decided to be a part of. But don't go blaming the US for the decision you made. Maybe you will just have to come to terms with the realization that ideals don't always conform with reality and that the "open the floodgates" project is going to show just how frail and problematic the "freedom of movement" provision can be. But that's not the US's fault. | ||
|
m4ini
4215 Posts
On March 20 2017 04:29 LegalLord wrote: The matter's come up in both threads very frequently. But the topic came up right here right now so... yeah. As for what to do: shoot them, deport them, set up refugee camps where it is cheaper to take care of a mass influx of refugees, take them at your own peril, or any other choice. It's your call since it's the union y'all decided to be a part of. But don't go blaming the US for the decision you made. Maybe you will just have to come to terms with the realization that ideals don't always conform with reality and that the "open the floodgates" project is going to show just how frail and problematic the "freedom of movement" provision can be. But that's not the US's fault. Freedom of movement has literally nothing to do with refugees. At all. Zero. Also, if you want to argue that US americans lack the basic human decency to care for the people whos homes you've destroyed, feel free to (hell, i actually would agree for the majority). I rather go with "i didn't want them, but i understand that you can't just let them die". | ||
| ||
StarCraft 2 StarCraft: Brood War Dota 2 Counter-Strike Super Smash Bros Heroes of the Storm Other Games |
|
RSL Revival
Classic vs SHIN
Maru vs TBD
herO vs TBD
Wardi Open
IPSL
StRyKeR vs OldBoy
Sziky vs Tarson
BSL 21
StRyKeR vs Artosis
OyAji vs KameZerg
OSC
OSC
Monday Night Weeklies
OSC
Wardi Open
Replay Cast
[ Show More ] |
|
|
EPT
