| Forum Index > General Forum |
Although this thread does not function under the same strict guidelines as the USPMT, it is still a general practice on TL to provide a source with an explanation on why it is relevant and what purpose it adds to the discussion. Failure to do so will result in a mod action. | ||
|
Nyxisto
Germany6287 Posts
On April 02 2017 10:26 Philoctetes wrote: They must have strange communists in Portugal then. Nationalist communists in the west. Strange. Seems to be a common theme among communists / anarchists nowadays to fall back to localism and direct democracy. I think Zizek criticized this rightfully, it solves exactly nothing. | ||
|
LegalLord
United States13779 Posts
U.S. Secretary of State Rex Tillerson reassured his nervous European counterparts over Washington's commitment to NATO on Friday and pressed them again to spend more on defense, triggering a rebuke from Germany. Foreign Minister Sigmar Gabriel said it was neither "reachable nor desirable" for Germany to spend the agreed NATO target of two percent of member states' economic output on defense. NATO allies have until 2024 to do that. "Two percent would mean military expenses of some 70 billion euros. I don't know any German politician who would claim that is reachable nor desirable," Gabriel told the first meeting of NATO foreign ministers attended by Tillerson. "The United States will realize it is better to talk about better spending instead of more spending," he said, noting that humanitarian, development and economic aid to stabilize countries and regions should also count. In his first remarks to NATO ministers, Tillerson said allies needed to pay up or outline plans for meeting that target when NATO leaders meet on May 25 for the first top-level summit of the alliance to be attended by U.S. President Donald Trump. Trump has criticized NATO as "obsolete" and suggested Washington's security guarantees for European allies could be conditional on them spending more on their own defense. He has also said he wants NATO to do more to fight terrorism. "Our goal should be to agree at the May leaders meeting that by the end of the year all allies will have either met the pledge guidelines or will have developed plans that clearly articulate how...the pledge will be fulfilled," Tillerson said. "Allies must demonstrate by their actions that they share U.S. government's commitment." Source What's the major cause for the resistance? Money issues? Not wanting to remilitarize? Something completely different? And what do the people think of it? Is Germany planning to cut a check for that $200 billion you owe the US? | ||
zatic
Zurich15366 Posts
Germany will moderately increase spending but will stay well below 70b. The Merkel admin might try some creative bookkeeping and hide other expenses in the military budget but even that wouldn't account for much. Germany doesn't owe the US 200 billion, so no, no check will be cut. If the US wants a purely transactional partnership they need to be prepared to pay for any military activity on German soil not related to protecting Germany from Russia. Currently Germany stays under target and the US get a free operational, command and logistics hub in the center of Europe. | ||
|
Simberto
Germany11978 Posts
We have also become less and less favorable of international interventions such as those done by the US in afghanistan and iraq, as they tend to not do anything good for anyone. Thus, we don't see a need for more military than we already have, definitively no need for doubling it, and would rather have that money being spend on basically anything else. Even just reducing the debt would be better. | ||
|
TheDwf
France19747 Posts
The US arrogance is absolutely insane, they think we're some kind of protectorate?? | ||
|
Artisreal
Germany9235 Posts
The 200 Billion is Trump's fantasy. As far as I read the commitment of 2% GDP, though from 2014, is due only in 2024. That's in 7 years' time. That makes his claim nothing more than populist leverage. | ||
|
warding
Portugal2397 Posts
On April 02 2017 10:57 Nyxisto wrote: Seems to be a common theme among communists / anarchists nowadays to fall back to localism and direct democracy. I think Zizek criticized this rightfully, it solves exactly nothing. The communists are against NATO, the EU and the Euro, so trying to stoke some marginal nationalist resentment makes sense. There's little internationalist hope for the communists given the shitshows in Cuba, Venezuela and North Korea. There is a nationalist party, which got 0.5% of the vote in the last elections. They're essentially a laughingstock in the country. The Portuguese non-nationalism can be in part explained as a reaction to the right-wing dictatorship that governed us until 1974, much like the eastern European right-wing nationalism might be a reaction to the brutal oppression of the USSR. Nations have a sense of collective memory, which helps explain why many Americans don't seem to recognize a fascist when they see one - they've never had to deal with one at home before. Yes, my view on this is subjective. I'm open to hear any evidence on the contrary. | ||
|
Philoctetes
Netherlands77 Posts
The US just wants a handout from the EU. Increase defense budget is just means 'buy more of our arms'. More arms means more wars. If US drops defense spending, then so can the Russia. Then so can China, Turkey, Saudi Arabia. Then so can Iran. Pakistan, India. And every other country will follow, including the EU. And we can spend money on education, elderly care, expensive science experiments, energy transition, climate change, preventing 600 million people in Africa from having to move because their ancestral grounds literally have become uninhabitable, etc etc. Trump has 0 credibility. Merkel is just waiting for the right moment to hand him back his absurdly stupid billing request. Only reason why US allies are swallowing Trump's blundering is because they are worried about the US. The US is so weak and so fucked up right now. We do want to win our diplomatic struggles against the US. But we also don't want the US to implode. | ||
|
Gorsameth
Netherlands22570 Posts
On April 02 2017 19:24 Artisreal wrote: Makes sense to solve problems instead of trying to smash em up. Though imo that's pure rethoric. What the EU and Germany have propageted in the passing months is building up a wall around Europe to keep people out (oh, hi USA, maybe there's more synergy than previously thought here), instead of actually promoting conflict free countries of origin (nothern and sub Saharan Africa or Middle East alike). The 200 Billion is Trump's fantasy. As far as I read the commitment of 2% GDP, though from 2014, is due only in 2024. That's in 7 years' time. That makes his claim nothing more than populist leverage. How would you 'promote" a conflict free Africa and Middle-east? There are no visible diplomatic solutions to the myriad of conflict and re-colonizing the regions under 'civilized" western occupation isn't really popular. | ||
|
Gorsameth
Netherlands22570 Posts
On April 02 2017 22:40 Philoctetes wrote: The whole NATO thing is just US asking for a handout. The NATO exists, or existed, so that in case of a nuclear WWIII with the Soviet Union, which hasn't existed for over two decades, the battleground, and the area where all the nukes fall, is Europe. Not the US. The US just wants a handout from the EU. Increase defense budget is just means 'buy more of our arms'. More arms means more wars. If US drops defense spending, then so can the Russia. Then so can China, Turkey, Saudi Arabia. Then so can Iran. Pakistan, India. And every other country will follow, including the EU. And we can spend money on education, elderly care, expensive science experiments, energy transition, climate change, preventing 600 million people in Africa from having to move because their ancestral grounds literally have become uninhabitable, etc etc. Trump has 0 credibility. Merkel is just waiting for the right moment to hand him back his absurdly stupid billing request. Only reason why US allies are swallowing Trump's blundering is because they are worried about the US. The US is so weak and so fucked up right now. We do want to win our diplomatic struggles against the US. But we also don't want the US to implode. US allies are putting up with Trump because we hope that 4 years from now the baboon is gone. They waited out Bush, they will wait out Trump. | ||
|
a_flayer
Netherlands2826 Posts
On April 02 2017 23:13 Gorsameth wrote: How would you 'promote" a conflict free Africa and Middle-east? There are no visible diplomatic solutions to the myriad of conflict and re-colonizing the regions under 'civilized" western occupation isn't really popular. Not propping up regimes because they favor trade with the west over their own citizens, not terrorizing the population with drones, not selling weapons that are used to flatten agriculture & infrastructure, not invading countries and thereby radicalizing huge portions of the population and destabilizing the entire region... Just a few things that come to mind. | ||
|
Gorsameth
Netherlands22570 Posts
On April 03 2017 00:16 a_flayer wrote: Not propping up regimes because they favor trade with the west over their own citizens, not terrorizing the population with drones, not selling weapons that are used to flatten agriculture & infrastructure, not invading countries and thereby radicalizing huge portions of the population and destabilizing the entire region... Just a few things that come to mind. Good thing I wasn't asking you because none of that actually fixes the ongoing problems. | ||
|
LegalLord
United States13779 Posts
On April 02 2017 23:15 Gorsameth wrote: US allies are putting up with Trump because we hope that 4 years from now the baboon is gone. They waited out Bush, they will wait out Trump. What about the next baboon we put into the presidency? You gonna wait him out too? | ||
|
Simberto
Germany11978 Posts
On April 03 2017 01:24 LegalLord wrote: What about the next baboon we put into the presidency? You gonna wait him out too? Yup, that is pretty much our MO now. Or i hope it is. The 50% of the time that you elect someone not insane, we deal with them, while keeping in mind that in about 4-8 years, you will elect a complete moron. I am pretty sure one can set up our treaties in a way that still kind of works to our advantage if we assume that the next moron is trying to break everything. You are basically Dr Jekyll & Mr. Hyde. Of course, it would be better for everyone if you stopped electing madmen for president. But you'd probably need to completely revamp your election system for that to happen (At least get rid of the legal bribery, that might be a good start), so it is probably not gonna happen. | ||
|
Gorsameth
Netherlands22570 Posts
On April 03 2017 01:24 LegalLord wrote: What about the next baboon we put into the presidency? You gonna wait him out too? Yes? The situation in the world is not going to change any time soon. The US will remain the biggest power and on the same team as the EU for the foreseeable future. | ||
|
LegalLord
United States13779 Posts
On April 02 2017 19:24 TheDwf wrote: The US arrogance is absolutely insane, they think we're some kind of protectorate?? Kind of. Modern opinion has centered around a more isolationist approach and on the more emotional side, people start to think that we're helping you Euro assholes out of our own pocket. US FP apparatus was pretty upset with Obama and how he started to moderate our commitments abroad. They went positively rabid with the prospect of Trump and pretty much every single thing he suggested, reasonable or not, that started to "undermine the alliance." Thankfully Europeans have a collective sense of Stockholm syndrome so they're just going to take it up the ass until the next guy comes around. You can probably expect, though, that most of what Trump pulls back on, the next president is not going to really reverse course on. Americans are, collectively, not particularly enamored with Europe, the FP apparatus says it's Asia time (while the population mostly says "fuck that shit"), and whichever way you look at it the trend of deemphasizing Europe is a result of the fact that the popular opinion is increasingly against any of that. | ||
|
Artisreal
Germany9235 Posts
On April 02 2017 23:13 Gorsameth wrote: How would you 'promote" a conflict free Africa and Middle-east? There are no visible diplomatic solutions to the myriad of conflict and re-colonizing the regions under 'civilized" western occupation isn't really popular. To be honest I have no fucking idea. But there are many smart people (not "Trump smart", really smart) of various groups that can help tackle the problems. From my point of view the society of the respective countries, in form of locals or expats isn't able to participate in the dialogue and we have to invest time and money for sustainable changes in the living conditions and perspectives in the respective countries. Transfering the value creation of produce like coffe and chocolate to the countries of origin as well as reducing export subsidies for foodstuff might help as well. Actually, is paramount to economic and civic progress, at least in my book. | ||
|
LegalLord
United States13779 Posts
| ||
|
Artisreal
Germany9235 Posts
Not much else can be derived from toppling a government in regards to supporting civic processes. | ||
|
LegalLord
United States13779 Posts
Turns out it doesn't work as well when you try to do it in a terrorist-infested shithole rather than the most developed region in the world which is merely down on its luck in the aftermath of a gigantic war. | ||
| ||
StarCraft 2 StarCraft: Brood War Dota 2 League of Legends Super Smash Bros Other Games |
|
Afreeca Starleague
Snow vs Shinee
Shine vs EffOrt
GSL
PiGosaur Cup
The PondCast
Kung Fu Cup
Replay Cast
KCM Race Survival
IntoTheTV X SOOP
Replay Cast
IntoTheTV X SOOP
[ Show More ] |
|
|
EPT
