|
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. |
So, more spending is needed against another country that is allready getting massively outspent by the EU alone?
|
On March 20 2017 05:31 RealityIsKing wrote:Show nested quote +On March 20 2017 05:26 zlefin wrote:On March 20 2017 05:22 RealityIsKing wrote:On March 20 2017 05:20 zlefin wrote:On March 20 2017 05:14 RealityIsKing wrote:
Donald Trump does have a point. Europe has been spending far too little on their defense in recent decades. They have relied on US protection, which has allowed them to cut military spending and use that money on other public services. repeating a falsehood doesn't make it true. you need to get a better sense of the actual spending levels and military risks and scenarios. europe spends little on defense because it has few military threats. They'd have been fine without US military protection. "NATO admits it has an "over-reliance" on the U.S. for the provision of essential capabilities, including intelligence, surveillance and reconnaissance, air-to-air refueling, ballistic missile defense and airborne electronic warfare." http://money.cnn.com/2016/07/08/news/nato-summit-spending-countries/Spin it however you want. Germany, who at the same time is boasting an economic surplus and willing to pay $100 billion for refugees, and most of the countries in NATO aren't contributing their fair share, and they know they're relying heavily on America's defense spending to make up for it. http://bigstory.ap.org/article/7b006f0e42d040f09b23616275478780/report-germany-spend-106b-refugees-over-5-years it has an over-reliance because the US is overspending; not because there's an ACTUAL military risk. so again, you don't know jack (or choose to ignore it, and have a poor sense of military strategy) my point is they'd be fine without US protection, because they simply have very few enemies, and those enemies power isn't that high. you'd need to point to an actual military threat that they coudln't handle without US help. do you need it spelled out for you more clearly? Haha, you are making me laugh so hard. You are showing that you know jack (or choose to ignore it, and have a poor sense of military strategy). The threat is Islamic terrorism which USA have been helping to keep Europe safe, and then Merkel fucked it up by allowing them to get through Europe. You haven't show any prove to your false statement. Just using broken English with no thoughts just because someone is trying to cut America some spending. Having a wasteful attitude is not a good way to get through life.
you're the one making ridiculous and outlandish claims, so the burden of proof is on you to demonstrate some validity to them.
otherwise you're just trolling.
|
On March 20 2017 05:31 RealityIsKing wrote:Show nested quote +On March 20 2017 05:26 zlefin wrote:On March 20 2017 05:22 RealityIsKing wrote:On March 20 2017 05:20 zlefin wrote:On March 20 2017 05:14 RealityIsKing wrote:
Donald Trump does have a point. Europe has been spending far too little on their defense in recent decades. They have relied on US protection, which has allowed them to cut military spending and use that money on other public services. repeating a falsehood doesn't make it true. you need to get a better sense of the actual spending levels and military risks and scenarios. europe spends little on defense because it has few military threats. They'd have been fine without US military protection. "NATO admits it has an "over-reliance" on the U.S. for the provision of essential capabilities, including intelligence, surveillance and reconnaissance, air-to-air refueling, ballistic missile defense and airborne electronic warfare." http://money.cnn.com/2016/07/08/news/nato-summit-spending-countries/Spin it however you want. Germany, who at the same time is boasting an economic surplus and willing to pay $100 billion for refugees, and most of the countries in NATO aren't contributing their fair share, and they know they're relying heavily on America's defense spending to make up for it. http://bigstory.ap.org/article/7b006f0e42d040f09b23616275478780/report-germany-spend-106b-refugees-over-5-years it has an over-reliance because the US is overspending; not because there's an ACTUAL military risk. so again, you don't know jack (or choose to ignore it, and have a poor sense of military strategy) my point is they'd be fine without US protection, because they simply have very few enemies, and those enemies power isn't that high. you'd need to point to an actual military threat that they coudln't handle without US help. do you need it spelled out for you more clearly? Haha, you are making me laugh so hard. You are showing that you know jack (or choose to ignore it, and have a poor sense of military strategy). The threat is Islamic terrorism which USA have been helping to keep Europe safe, and then Merkel fucked it up by allowing them to get through Europe. You haven't show any prove to your false statement. Just using broken English with no thoughts just because someone is trying to cut America some spending. Having a wasteful attitude is not a good way to get through life.
You mean those ISIS terrorists that came out of your failed adventure into Iraq?
Or did you mean Al-Qaeda which America directly created?
The EU would not be having an 'Islamic terrorism' problem if the US did not create it that very problem.
Edit: Wait, hold on. Cut America some spending? Trump wants to increase spending by 54 billion ffs...
|
$54 billion will buy us another three or four F-35s, or maybe one of those brand-new F-36s. Imagine how much more effectively our depleted military will function when we restore that money to it. We will spread so much more freedom with that boost.
|
On March 20 2017 05:35 zlefin wrote:Show nested quote +On March 20 2017 05:31 RealityIsKing wrote:On March 20 2017 05:26 zlefin wrote:On March 20 2017 05:22 RealityIsKing wrote:On March 20 2017 05:20 zlefin wrote:On March 20 2017 05:14 RealityIsKing wrote:
Donald Trump does have a point. Europe has been spending far too little on their defense in recent decades. They have relied on US protection, which has allowed them to cut military spending and use that money on other public services. repeating a falsehood doesn't make it true. you need to get a better sense of the actual spending levels and military risks and scenarios. europe spends little on defense because it has few military threats. They'd have been fine without US military protection. "NATO admits it has an "over-reliance" on the U.S. for the provision of essential capabilities, including intelligence, surveillance and reconnaissance, air-to-air refueling, ballistic missile defense and airborne electronic warfare." http://money.cnn.com/2016/07/08/news/nato-summit-spending-countries/Spin it however you want. Germany, who at the same time is boasting an economic surplus and willing to pay $100 billion for refugees, and most of the countries in NATO aren't contributing their fair share, and they know they're relying heavily on America's defense spending to make up for it. http://bigstory.ap.org/article/7b006f0e42d040f09b23616275478780/report-germany-spend-106b-refugees-over-5-years it has an over-reliance because the US is overspending; not because there's an ACTUAL military risk. so again, you don't know jack (or choose to ignore it, and have a poor sense of military strategy) my point is they'd be fine without US protection, because they simply have very few enemies, and those enemies power isn't that high. you'd need to point to an actual military threat that they coudln't handle without US help. do you need it spelled out for you more clearly? Haha, you are making me laugh so hard. You are showing that you know jack (or choose to ignore it, and have a poor sense of military strategy). The threat is Islamic terrorism which USA have been helping to keep Europe safe, and then Merkel fucked it up by allowing them to get through Europe. You haven't show any prove to your false statement. Just using broken English with no thoughts just because someone is trying to cut America some spending. Having a wasteful attitude is not a good way to get through life. you're the one making ridiculous and outlandish claims, so the burden of proof is on you to demonstrate some validity to them. otherwise you're just trolling.
No I gave all those links, and you don't even bother to respond to any of them and just repeating your previous statement just because Donald Trump said them.
Stop being ridiculous.
On March 20 2017 05:35 Gorsameth wrote:Show nested quote +On March 20 2017 05:31 RealityIsKing wrote:On March 20 2017 05:26 zlefin wrote:On March 20 2017 05:22 RealityIsKing wrote:On March 20 2017 05:20 zlefin wrote:On March 20 2017 05:14 RealityIsKing wrote:
Donald Trump does have a point. Europe has been spending far too little on their defense in recent decades. They have relied on US protection, which has allowed them to cut military spending and use that money on other public services. repeating a falsehood doesn't make it true. you need to get a better sense of the actual spending levels and military risks and scenarios. europe spends little on defense because it has few military threats. They'd have been fine without US military protection. "NATO admits it has an "over-reliance" on the U.S. for the provision of essential capabilities, including intelligence, surveillance and reconnaissance, air-to-air refueling, ballistic missile defense and airborne electronic warfare." http://money.cnn.com/2016/07/08/news/nato-summit-spending-countries/Spin it however you want. Germany, who at the same time is boasting an economic surplus and willing to pay $100 billion for refugees, and most of the countries in NATO aren't contributing their fair share, and they know they're relying heavily on America's defense spending to make up for it. http://bigstory.ap.org/article/7b006f0e42d040f09b23616275478780/report-germany-spend-106b-refugees-over-5-years it has an over-reliance because the US is overspending; not because there's an ACTUAL military risk. so again, you don't know jack (or choose to ignore it, and have a poor sense of military strategy) my point is they'd be fine without US protection, because they simply have very few enemies, and those enemies power isn't that high. you'd need to point to an actual military threat that they coudln't handle without US help. do you need it spelled out for you more clearly? Haha, you are making me laugh so hard. You are showing that you know jack (or choose to ignore it, and have a poor sense of military strategy). The threat is Islamic terrorism which USA have been helping to keep Europe safe, and then Merkel fucked it up by allowing them to get through Europe. You haven't show any prove to your false statement. Just using broken English with no thoughts just because someone is trying to cut America some spending. Having a wasteful attitude is not a good way to get through life. You mean those ISIS terrorists that came out of your failed adventure into Iraq? Or did you mean Al-Qaeda which America directly created?The EU would not be having an 'Islamic terrorism' problem if the US did not create it that very problem. Edit: Wait, hold on. Cut America some spending? Trump wants to increase spending by 54 billion ffs...
Conspiracy theorist alert.
|
On March 20 2017 05:38 RealityIsKing wrote:Show nested quote +On March 20 2017 05:35 zlefin wrote:On March 20 2017 05:31 RealityIsKing wrote:On March 20 2017 05:26 zlefin wrote:On March 20 2017 05:22 RealityIsKing wrote:On March 20 2017 05:20 zlefin wrote:On March 20 2017 05:14 RealityIsKing wrote:
Donald Trump does have a point. Europe has been spending far too little on their defense in recent decades. They have relied on US protection, which has allowed them to cut military spending and use that money on other public services. repeating a falsehood doesn't make it true. you need to get a better sense of the actual spending levels and military risks and scenarios. europe spends little on defense because it has few military threats. They'd have been fine without US military protection. "NATO admits it has an "over-reliance" on the U.S. for the provision of essential capabilities, including intelligence, surveillance and reconnaissance, air-to-air refueling, ballistic missile defense and airborne electronic warfare." http://money.cnn.com/2016/07/08/news/nato-summit-spending-countries/Spin it however you want. Germany, who at the same time is boasting an economic surplus and willing to pay $100 billion for refugees, and most of the countries in NATO aren't contributing their fair share, and they know they're relying heavily on America's defense spending to make up for it. http://bigstory.ap.org/article/7b006f0e42d040f09b23616275478780/report-germany-spend-106b-refugees-over-5-years it has an over-reliance because the US is overspending; not because there's an ACTUAL military risk. so again, you don't know jack (or choose to ignore it, and have a poor sense of military strategy) my point is they'd be fine without US protection, because they simply have very few enemies, and those enemies power isn't that high. you'd need to point to an actual military threat that they coudln't handle without US help. do you need it spelled out for you more clearly? Haha, you are making me laugh so hard. You are showing that you know jack (or choose to ignore it, and have a poor sense of military strategy). The threat is Islamic terrorism which USA have been helping to keep Europe safe, and then Merkel fucked it up by allowing them to get through Europe. You haven't show any prove to your false statement. Just using broken English with no thoughts just because someone is trying to cut America some spending. Having a wasteful attitude is not a good way to get through life. you're the one making ridiculous and outlandish claims, so the burden of proof is on you to demonstrate some validity to them. otherwise you're just trolling. No I gave all those links, and you don't even bother to respond to any of them and just repeating your previous statement just because Donald Trump said them. Stop being ridiculous. Show nested quote +On March 20 2017 05:35 Gorsameth wrote:On March 20 2017 05:31 RealityIsKing wrote:On March 20 2017 05:26 zlefin wrote:On March 20 2017 05:22 RealityIsKing wrote:On March 20 2017 05:20 zlefin wrote:On March 20 2017 05:14 RealityIsKing wrote:
Donald Trump does have a point. Europe has been spending far too little on their defense in recent decades. They have relied on US protection, which has allowed them to cut military spending and use that money on other public services. repeating a falsehood doesn't make it true. you need to get a better sense of the actual spending levels and military risks and scenarios. europe spends little on defense because it has few military threats. They'd have been fine without US military protection. "NATO admits it has an "over-reliance" on the U.S. for the provision of essential capabilities, including intelligence, surveillance and reconnaissance, air-to-air refueling, ballistic missile defense and airborne electronic warfare." http://money.cnn.com/2016/07/08/news/nato-summit-spending-countries/Spin it however you want. Germany, who at the same time is boasting an economic surplus and willing to pay $100 billion for refugees, and most of the countries in NATO aren't contributing their fair share, and they know they're relying heavily on America's defense spending to make up for it. http://bigstory.ap.org/article/7b006f0e42d040f09b23616275478780/report-germany-spend-106b-refugees-over-5-years it has an over-reliance because the US is overspending; not because there's an ACTUAL military risk. so again, you don't know jack (or choose to ignore it, and have a poor sense of military strategy) my point is they'd be fine without US protection, because they simply have very few enemies, and those enemies power isn't that high. you'd need to point to an actual military threat that they coudln't handle without US help. do you need it spelled out for you more clearly? Haha, you are making me laugh so hard. You are showing that you know jack (or choose to ignore it, and have a poor sense of military strategy). The threat is Islamic terrorism which USA have been helping to keep Europe safe, and then Merkel fucked it up by allowing them to get through Europe. You haven't show any prove to your false statement. Just using broken English with no thoughts just because someone is trying to cut America some spending. Having a wasteful attitude is not a good way to get through life. You mean those ISIS terrorists that came out of your failed adventure into Iraq? Or did you mean Al-Qaeda which America directly created?The EU would not be having an 'Islamic terrorism' problem if the US did not create it that very problem. Edit: Wait, hold on. Cut America some spending? Trump wants to increase spending by 54 billion ffs... Conspiracy theorist alert.
an unsound opinion piece which doesn't address the actual point at all: what actual THREAT do they need to spend more money to defeat? unless you can cite an actual threat against which that increased military spending would help, you're being dumb and showing a complete lack of strategic understanding.
so no, you just provided a couple links that don't do anything to address the actual threat levels that would justify military spending.
and you cited islamic terrorism, which isn't something you counter with military force anyways. nor does it actually do that much damage.
|
On March 20 2017 05:38 RealityIsKing wrote:Show nested quote +On March 20 2017 05:35 zlefin wrote:On March 20 2017 05:31 RealityIsKing wrote:On March 20 2017 05:26 zlefin wrote:On March 20 2017 05:22 RealityIsKing wrote:On March 20 2017 05:20 zlefin wrote:On March 20 2017 05:14 RealityIsKing wrote:
Donald Trump does have a point. Europe has been spending far too little on their defense in recent decades. They have relied on US protection, which has allowed them to cut military spending and use that money on other public services. repeating a falsehood doesn't make it true. you need to get a better sense of the actual spending levels and military risks and scenarios. europe spends little on defense because it has few military threats. They'd have been fine without US military protection. "NATO admits it has an "over-reliance" on the U.S. for the provision of essential capabilities, including intelligence, surveillance and reconnaissance, air-to-air refueling, ballistic missile defense and airborne electronic warfare." http://money.cnn.com/2016/07/08/news/nato-summit-spending-countries/Spin it however you want. Germany, who at the same time is boasting an economic surplus and willing to pay $100 billion for refugees, and most of the countries in NATO aren't contributing their fair share, and they know they're relying heavily on America's defense spending to make up for it. http://bigstory.ap.org/article/7b006f0e42d040f09b23616275478780/report-germany-spend-106b-refugees-over-5-years it has an over-reliance because the US is overspending; not because there's an ACTUAL military risk. so again, you don't know jack (or choose to ignore it, and have a poor sense of military strategy) my point is they'd be fine without US protection, because they simply have very few enemies, and those enemies power isn't that high. you'd need to point to an actual military threat that they coudln't handle without US help. do you need it spelled out for you more clearly? Haha, you are making me laugh so hard. You are showing that you know jack (or choose to ignore it, and have a poor sense of military strategy). The threat is Islamic terrorism which USA have been helping to keep Europe safe, and then Merkel fucked it up by allowing them to get through Europe. You haven't show any prove to your false statement. Just using broken English with no thoughts just because someone is trying to cut America some spending. Having a wasteful attitude is not a good way to get through life. you're the one making ridiculous and outlandish claims, so the burden of proof is on you to demonstrate some validity to them. otherwise you're just trolling. No I gave all those links, and you don't even bother to respond to any of them and just repeating your previous statement just because Donald Trump said them. Stop being ridiculous. Show nested quote +On March 20 2017 05:35 Gorsameth wrote:On March 20 2017 05:31 RealityIsKing wrote:On March 20 2017 05:26 zlefin wrote:On March 20 2017 05:22 RealityIsKing wrote:On March 20 2017 05:20 zlefin wrote:On March 20 2017 05:14 RealityIsKing wrote:
Donald Trump does have a point. Europe has been spending far too little on their defense in recent decades. They have relied on US protection, which has allowed them to cut military spending and use that money on other public services. repeating a falsehood doesn't make it true. you need to get a better sense of the actual spending levels and military risks and scenarios. europe spends little on defense because it has few military threats. They'd have been fine without US military protection. "NATO admits it has an "over-reliance" on the U.S. for the provision of essential capabilities, including intelligence, surveillance and reconnaissance, air-to-air refueling, ballistic missile defense and airborne electronic warfare." http://money.cnn.com/2016/07/08/news/nato-summit-spending-countries/Spin it however you want. Germany, who at the same time is boasting an economic surplus and willing to pay $100 billion for refugees, and most of the countries in NATO aren't contributing their fair share, and they know they're relying heavily on America's defense spending to make up for it. http://bigstory.ap.org/article/7b006f0e42d040f09b23616275478780/report-germany-spend-106b-refugees-over-5-years it has an over-reliance because the US is overspending; not because there's an ACTUAL military risk. so again, you don't know jack (or choose to ignore it, and have a poor sense of military strategy) my point is they'd be fine without US protection, because they simply have very few enemies, and those enemies power isn't that high. you'd need to point to an actual military threat that they coudln't handle without US help. do you need it spelled out for you more clearly? Haha, you are making me laugh so hard. You are showing that you know jack (or choose to ignore it, and have a poor sense of military strategy). The threat is Islamic terrorism which USA have been helping to keep Europe safe, and then Merkel fucked it up by allowing them to get through Europe. You haven't show any prove to your false statement. Just using broken English with no thoughts just because someone is trying to cut America some spending. Having a wasteful attitude is not a good way to get through life. You mean those ISIS terrorists that came out of your failed adventure into Iraq? Or did you mean Al-Qaeda which America directly created?The EU would not be having an 'Islamic terrorism' problem if the US did not create it that very problem. Edit: Wait, hold on. Cut America some spending? Trump wants to increase spending by 54 billion ffs... Conspiracy theorist alert.
I highly suggest you research Al-Qaeda's history (The Looming Tower is a good read) if you don't think America more or less directly created Al-Qaeda during the 80s.
That said, the metrics for "who spends enough" in NATO are weird (2% GDP on military in the article you quoted). All defense spending as a % GDP is used as a metric, which I think includes all domestic surveillance done by the countries among other things, but it obviously doesn't count off-the-books espionage or other clandestine projects. Iceland would need to multiply its military budget by something like 20-fold to meet the targets, which is weird and would likely just end up being pork of one kind of another.
Basically, the U.S. could spend another 5% GDP on their military and "increase their share" of NATO by building missile turrets in every U.S. city.
|
On March 20 2017 05:42 zlefin wrote:Show nested quote +On March 20 2017 05:38 RealityIsKing wrote:On March 20 2017 05:35 zlefin wrote:On March 20 2017 05:31 RealityIsKing wrote:On March 20 2017 05:26 zlefin wrote:On March 20 2017 05:22 RealityIsKing wrote:On March 20 2017 05:20 zlefin wrote:On March 20 2017 05:14 RealityIsKing wrote:
Donald Trump does have a point. Europe has been spending far too little on their defense in recent decades. They have relied on US protection, which has allowed them to cut military spending and use that money on other public services. repeating a falsehood doesn't make it true. you need to get a better sense of the actual spending levels and military risks and scenarios. europe spends little on defense because it has few military threats. They'd have been fine without US military protection. "NATO admits it has an "over-reliance" on the U.S. for the provision of essential capabilities, including intelligence, surveillance and reconnaissance, air-to-air refueling, ballistic missile defense and airborne electronic warfare." http://money.cnn.com/2016/07/08/news/nato-summit-spending-countries/Spin it however you want. Germany, who at the same time is boasting an economic surplus and willing to pay $100 billion for refugees, and most of the countries in NATO aren't contributing their fair share, and they know they're relying heavily on America's defense spending to make up for it. http://bigstory.ap.org/article/7b006f0e42d040f09b23616275478780/report-germany-spend-106b-refugees-over-5-years it has an over-reliance because the US is overspending; not because there's an ACTUAL military risk. so again, you don't know jack (or choose to ignore it, and have a poor sense of military strategy) my point is they'd be fine without US protection, because they simply have very few enemies, and those enemies power isn't that high. you'd need to point to an actual military threat that they coudln't handle without US help. do you need it spelled out for you more clearly? Haha, you are making me laugh so hard. You are showing that you know jack (or choose to ignore it, and have a poor sense of military strategy). The threat is Islamic terrorism which USA have been helping to keep Europe safe, and then Merkel fucked it up by allowing them to get through Europe. You haven't show any prove to your false statement. Just using broken English with no thoughts just because someone is trying to cut America some spending. Having a wasteful attitude is not a good way to get through life. you're the one making ridiculous and outlandish claims, so the burden of proof is on you to demonstrate some validity to them. otherwise you're just trolling. No I gave all those links, and you don't even bother to respond to any of them and just repeating your previous statement just because Donald Trump said them. Stop being ridiculous. On March 20 2017 05:35 Gorsameth wrote:On March 20 2017 05:31 RealityIsKing wrote:On March 20 2017 05:26 zlefin wrote:On March 20 2017 05:22 RealityIsKing wrote:On March 20 2017 05:20 zlefin wrote:On March 20 2017 05:14 RealityIsKing wrote:
Donald Trump does have a point. Europe has been spending far too little on their defense in recent decades. They have relied on US protection, which has allowed them to cut military spending and use that money on other public services. repeating a falsehood doesn't make it true. you need to get a better sense of the actual spending levels and military risks and scenarios. europe spends little on defense because it has few military threats. They'd have been fine without US military protection. "NATO admits it has an "over-reliance" on the U.S. for the provision of essential capabilities, including intelligence, surveillance and reconnaissance, air-to-air refueling, ballistic missile defense and airborne electronic warfare." http://money.cnn.com/2016/07/08/news/nato-summit-spending-countries/Spin it however you want. Germany, who at the same time is boasting an economic surplus and willing to pay $100 billion for refugees, and most of the countries in NATO aren't contributing their fair share, and they know they're relying heavily on America's defense spending to make up for it. http://bigstory.ap.org/article/7b006f0e42d040f09b23616275478780/report-germany-spend-106b-refugees-over-5-years it has an over-reliance because the US is overspending; not because there's an ACTUAL military risk. so again, you don't know jack (or choose to ignore it, and have a poor sense of military strategy) my point is they'd be fine without US protection, because they simply have very few enemies, and those enemies power isn't that high. you'd need to point to an actual military threat that they coudln't handle without US help. do you need it spelled out for you more clearly? Haha, you are making me laugh so hard. You are showing that you know jack (or choose to ignore it, and have a poor sense of military strategy). The threat is Islamic terrorism which USA have been helping to keep Europe safe, and then Merkel fucked it up by allowing them to get through Europe. You haven't show any prove to your false statement. Just using broken English with no thoughts just because someone is trying to cut America some spending. Having a wasteful attitude is not a good way to get through life. You mean those ISIS terrorists that came out of your failed adventure into Iraq? Or did you mean Al-Qaeda which America directly created?The EU would not be having an 'Islamic terrorism' problem if the US did not create it that very problem. Edit: Wait, hold on. Cut America some spending? Trump wants to increase spending by 54 billion ffs... Conspiracy theorist alert. an unsound opinion piece which doesn't address the actual point at all: what actual THREAT do they need to spend more money to defeat? unless you can cite an actual threat against which that increased military spending would help, you're being dumb and showing a complete lack of strategic understanding. so no, you just provided a couple links that don't do anything to address the actual threat levels that would justify military spending. and you cited islamic terrorism, which isn't something you counter with military force anyways. nor does it actually do that much damage.
So basically you are going to ignore all those terror done by Islamist.
You can absolutely mitigate Islamic terrorism by properly setting up a government that forbid Islamist for wanting to kill people that doesn't believe in their religion.
And that requires military intervention.
|
|
|
On March 20 2017 05:52 RealityIsKing wrote:Show nested quote +On March 20 2017 05:42 zlefin wrote:On March 20 2017 05:38 RealityIsKing wrote:On March 20 2017 05:35 zlefin wrote:On March 20 2017 05:31 RealityIsKing wrote:On March 20 2017 05:26 zlefin wrote:On March 20 2017 05:22 RealityIsKing wrote:On March 20 2017 05:20 zlefin wrote:On March 20 2017 05:14 RealityIsKing wrote:
Donald Trump does have a point. Europe has been spending far too little on their defense in recent decades. They have relied on US protection, which has allowed them to cut military spending and use that money on other public services. repeating a falsehood doesn't make it true. you need to get a better sense of the actual spending levels and military risks and scenarios. europe spends little on defense because it has few military threats. They'd have been fine without US military protection. "NATO admits it has an "over-reliance" on the U.S. for the provision of essential capabilities, including intelligence, surveillance and reconnaissance, air-to-air refueling, ballistic missile defense and airborne electronic warfare." http://money.cnn.com/2016/07/08/news/nato-summit-spending-countries/Spin it however you want. Germany, who at the same time is boasting an economic surplus and willing to pay $100 billion for refugees, and most of the countries in NATO aren't contributing their fair share, and they know they're relying heavily on America's defense spending to make up for it. http://bigstory.ap.org/article/7b006f0e42d040f09b23616275478780/report-germany-spend-106b-refugees-over-5-years it has an over-reliance because the US is overspending; not because there's an ACTUAL military risk. so again, you don't know jack (or choose to ignore it, and have a poor sense of military strategy) my point is they'd be fine without US protection, because they simply have very few enemies, and those enemies power isn't that high. you'd need to point to an actual military threat that they coudln't handle without US help. do you need it spelled out for you more clearly? Haha, you are making me laugh so hard. You are showing that you know jack (or choose to ignore it, and have a poor sense of military strategy). The threat is Islamic terrorism which USA have been helping to keep Europe safe, and then Merkel fucked it up by allowing them to get through Europe. You haven't show any prove to your false statement. Just using broken English with no thoughts just because someone is trying to cut America some spending. Having a wasteful attitude is not a good way to get through life. you're the one making ridiculous and outlandish claims, so the burden of proof is on you to demonstrate some validity to them. otherwise you're just trolling. No I gave all those links, and you don't even bother to respond to any of them and just repeating your previous statement just because Donald Trump said them. Stop being ridiculous. On March 20 2017 05:35 Gorsameth wrote:On March 20 2017 05:31 RealityIsKing wrote:On March 20 2017 05:26 zlefin wrote:On March 20 2017 05:22 RealityIsKing wrote:On March 20 2017 05:20 zlefin wrote:On March 20 2017 05:14 RealityIsKing wrote:
Donald Trump does have a point. Europe has been spending far too little on their defense in recent decades. They have relied on US protection, which has allowed them to cut military spending and use that money on other public services. repeating a falsehood doesn't make it true. you need to get a better sense of the actual spending levels and military risks and scenarios. europe spends little on defense because it has few military threats. They'd have been fine without US military protection. "NATO admits it has an "over-reliance" on the U.S. for the provision of essential capabilities, including intelligence, surveillance and reconnaissance, air-to-air refueling, ballistic missile defense and airborne electronic warfare." http://money.cnn.com/2016/07/08/news/nato-summit-spending-countries/Spin it however you want. Germany, who at the same time is boasting an economic surplus and willing to pay $100 billion for refugees, and most of the countries in NATO aren't contributing their fair share, and they know they're relying heavily on America's defense spending to make up for it. http://bigstory.ap.org/article/7b006f0e42d040f09b23616275478780/report-germany-spend-106b-refugees-over-5-years it has an over-reliance because the US is overspending; not because there's an ACTUAL military risk. so again, you don't know jack (or choose to ignore it, and have a poor sense of military strategy) my point is they'd be fine without US protection, because they simply have very few enemies, and those enemies power isn't that high. you'd need to point to an actual military threat that they coudln't handle without US help. do you need it spelled out for you more clearly? Haha, you are making me laugh so hard. You are showing that you know jack (or choose to ignore it, and have a poor sense of military strategy). The threat is Islamic terrorism which USA have been helping to keep Europe safe, and then Merkel fucked it up by allowing them to get through Europe. You haven't show any prove to your false statement. Just using broken English with no thoughts just because someone is trying to cut America some spending. Having a wasteful attitude is not a good way to get through life. You mean those ISIS terrorists that came out of your failed adventure into Iraq? Or did you mean Al-Qaeda which America directly created?The EU would not be having an 'Islamic terrorism' problem if the US did not create it that very problem. Edit: Wait, hold on. Cut America some spending? Trump wants to increase spending by 54 billion ffs... Conspiracy theorist alert. an unsound opinion piece which doesn't address the actual point at all: what actual THREAT do they need to spend more money to defeat? unless you can cite an actual threat against which that increased military spending would help, you're being dumb and showing a complete lack of strategic understanding. so no, you just provided a couple links that don't do anything to address the actual threat levels that would justify military spending. and you cited islamic terrorism, which isn't something you counter with military force anyways. nor does it actually do that much damage. So basically you are going to ignore all those terror done by Islamist. You can absolutely mitigate Islamic terrorism by properly setting up a government that forbid Islamist for wanting to kill people that doesn't believe in their religion. And that requires military intervention.
that's far far more expensive and difficult than the correct interventions, which are policing locally.
you're also overestimating the amount of actual damage the terrorists have caused, especially in comparison to the size of military budgets.
|
A way to put into perspective the terrorist threat from Islamist terrorattacks is to contrast it to other causes of death or destruction.
In total Wikipedia has 20,165+ deaths over 50 years globally.
Traffic deaths last year wiki has data for was roughly 1,250,000. So a factor of 3 100 worse than that specific type of terrorist. I personally see where I want the focus to be when comparing them.
Or for even worse things just look at the overall list and pump the money to the top one until the next one takes over. The entire group terrorism is under makes up 2.84% with suicide 1.53%, thus making that the biggest focus in "Intentional injuries (Suicide, Violence, War, etc.)". https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_causes_of_death_by_rate
|
On March 20 2017 06:20 Yurie wrote:A way to put into perspective the terrorist threat from Islamist terrorattacks is to contrast it to other causes of death or destruction. In total Wikipedia has 20,165+ deaths over 50 years globally. Traffic deaths last year wiki has data for was roughly 1,250,000. So a factor of 3 100 worse than that specific type of terrorist. I personally see where I want the focus to be when comparing them. Or for even worse things just look at the overall list and pump the money to the top one until the next one takes over. The entire group terrorism is under makes up 2.84% with suicide 1.53%, thus making that the biggest focus in "Intentional injuries (Suicide, Violence, War, etc.)". https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_causes_of_death_by_rate
I already know the answer to that "But the threat of terrorism is only that low because we fight it that hard!"
I have seen this discussion multiple times. It is incredibly silly, but you are not gonna convince people like RiK. I am still not sure if he is not just trolling, because his posts are utterly insane in a way that seems to force people to respond to him and get angry. He could just have really, really weird opinions though.
Basically, it seems to be pointless to argue with him, as he is utterly detached from reality. (Ironically)
Basic commons sense tells you that terrorism really isn't that scary, truck drivers who didn't sleep enough are way more scary. It also tells you that the scary it is didn't get reduced by what the US has been doing for the last 15 years, instead it seems to have increased it. And it also tells you that the EU is spending enough money on their military to deal with the things they have to deal with, while the US wastes insane amounts of money on it and complains that you don't.
If the other guy has 12 Marines to attack you with, you are fine with a bunker, 3 scvs and 4 marines. You don't need 15 tanks, two vessels, 20 vultures, and a minefield that covers the whole map.
|
On March 20 2017 05:18 Sermokala wrote:Show nested quote +On March 20 2017 05:15 Velr wrote:
Against who, except the US, would europe need more budget? Being able to help out in stabilizing and enlightening less developed countries? There are more things to do with your military then just going to war.
so you agree with the german ministry of defence? That's exactly what she said oO Perhaps minus the enlightening part.
I'll quote again
"Defense spending also goes into UN peacekeeping missions, into our European missions and into our contribution to the fight against IS terrorism," von der Leyen said.
|
United States43271 Posts
On March 20 2017 05:14 RealityIsKing wrote:
Donald Trump does have a point. Europe has been spending far too little on their defense in recent decades. They have relied on US protection, which has allowed them to cut military spending and use that money on other public services.
Defense against whom? NATO has only been invoked once in its history, and the US invoked it and demanded that the NATO allies invade Afghanistan.
The US doesn't occupy Germany to protect Germany from the world. The US occupies Germany because nobody was really very keen on the idea of Germany having an overmighty military after the first half of the 20th C. Everyone knows that Germany can defend Europe against the Soviet Union. The problem is that Germany is too good at it and that used to make France and Britain nervous.
If the US pulled out of Europe Germany would have to fill the void and nobody really wants that for historical reasons. Exact same shit with Japan. If the US stopped occupying Japan and Japan remilitarized and withdrew from the non-proliferation treaty then Korea, China and Taiwan are going to get very angry very fast.
The US put together team Allies during World War II to create a new world order dominated by the US. US, UK, France, Canada, Australia, Taiwan (was China at the time), Brazil, and a few others like Abyssinia at the time and Italy after it switched sides. The new world was based on those nations collectively working to secure the world against the threat of a third World War. Part of the deal was that the aggressors, principally Germany and Japan, would be forcibly restrained by the US. For some reason Trump never bothered to go to history classes so he doesn't seem to know that this isn't the US doing Germany and Japan a favour. The US deliberately set this up for American military and economic hegemony in the wake of the Second World War.
|
idk what you know about the Germany military, but it is rather underfunded and stretched pretty thin already. Ministry of defence have been calling for more funds for years on end and if some big machinery is being developed, well the Elbphilharmonie and Berlin's airport are prime examples of what happens with giant projects here at the moment.
So about stepping in or being too god for something is not really the case here. VS Russia, how do you defend yourself vs nukes though if you don't have em yourself? If a country could it'd be the UK and France. Germany doesn't even have an aircraft carrier.
|
So, I've noticed a trend in a lot of mainstream media outlets. They refer to Trump as "far-right". However, they refer to mainstream GOP people like Paul Ryan or even Mike Pence as merely conservative, very conservative, or at worst, arch-conservative. What makes Trump far-right but Paul Ryan not? Paul Ryan seems further right on almost every issue to me.
|
On March 20 2017 08:52 Nevuk wrote:
So, I've noticed a trend in a lot of mainstream media outlets. They refer to Trump as "far-right". However, they refer to mainstream GOP people like Paul Ryan or even Mike Pence as merely conservative, very conservative, or at worst, arch-conservative. What makes Trump far-right but Paul Ryan not? Paul Ryan seems further right on almost every issue to me.
I think it's more that Trump isn't the typical Religious conservative so it's weird to throw him in with that. Plus his immigration views are pretty extreme. He's also way more of an isolationist. Infrastructure is not a very conervative point.
I can tell you where he's different from Ryan and Pence but not too sure about why he's not considered a conservative.
|
On March 20 2017 08:52 Nevuk wrote:
So, I've noticed a trend in a lot of mainstream media outlets. They refer to Trump as "far-right". However, they refer to mainstream GOP people like Paul Ryan or even Mike Pence as merely conservative, very conservative, or at worst, arch-conservative. What makes Trump far-right but Paul Ryan not? Paul Ryan seems further right on almost every issue to me.
Because they need an ambiguous insult and calling him "conservative" or "ultra-conservative" is clearly asinine.
|
On March 20 2017 08:52 Nevuk wrote:
So, I've noticed a trend in a lot of mainstream media outlets. They refer to Trump as "far-right". However, they refer to mainstream GOP people like Paul Ryan or even Mike Pence as merely conservative, very conservative, or at worst, arch-conservative. What makes Trump far-right but Paul Ryan not? Paul Ryan seems further right on almost every issue to me.
I've thought about that too and I guess they're refering to a comparison to european far right parties, Trump shares much more similarity with a Le Pen / Wilders / Blocher than the other Republicans do. Of course the fact that other Republicans are also absurdly right wing kind of gets lost in translation so I do find the terminology annoying in that respect.
|
On March 20 2017 08:57 Introvert wrote:Show nested quote +On March 20 2017 08:52 Nevuk wrote:
So, I've noticed a trend in a lot of mainstream media outlets. They refer to Trump as "far-right". However, they refer to mainstream GOP people like Paul Ryan or even Mike Pence as merely conservative, very conservative, or at worst, arch-conservative. What makes Trump far-right but Paul Ryan not? Paul Ryan seems further right on almost every issue to me. Because they need an ambiguous insult and calling him "conservative" or "ultra-conservative" is clearly asinine.
Crafting insults for people that they don't like, but not in the same way they dislike Trump, is a tough business. They'll trial it first and see what happens. Which is why I suspect they wish Clinton's alt-right Pepe campaign push had stuck, so Trump could be an alt-right radical and they could keep right-wing for conservatives, RINOs, and policy mismatches.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
