Yeah because a magic border makes it so that things don’t affect all of us. Isn’t that wonderful?
I legit don’t understand how anyone can think so small.
If a fire starts in a city where everyone has your attitude, how long before it all burns down?
Whether we like it or not, borders aren’t magical lines that protect us from the damage done behind one of those lines. Humanity is responsible for the wellbeing of humanity. No silly little line is going to change that.
Imagine the consequences we’d still be suffering (yes, we. All of us) if the US hadn’t joined in WWII.
I honestly don’t understand how anyone can think of their fellow humans as parasites. We’re all in this together. One big ego with enough support can destroy all of our lives and throw us back into the dark ages.
We have thousands of years of history to guide us. Look into it.
Sure, but it’s not the US’s job to protect the world. I’m a US citizen, and I’m not a fan of us spending ~5x vs Germany on defense, especially when Germany is such an economic powerhouse in the EU.
I would really like to cut defense spending, but for that to happen, other NATO countries need to increase their defense spending. I absolutely think we should stay in NATO (for the reasons you stated), but NATO is supposed to be an alliance, not a set of countries protected by the US. Yes, it’s in our interest to protect the EU, but it’s also in the EU’s interest to protect the US. We should have each other’s back.
No, they don’t. The US military spending far outpaces any other country. The US spends more than the next 10 countries combined! You don’t “need” that much spending, but your GDP is happy for that extra trillion every year that some day will trickle down for sure winkwink.
In summary, your rhetoric is pure propaganda of conservative talking points, unfortunately.
While I agree we need to drastically reduce military spending, that decision has consequences. We’d need to shut down foreign bases, reduce naval presence around the globe, and increase our reliance on reserves instead of standing military. If we do that, that’ll embolden other countries (like China, Iran, and Russia) to fill that void unless other partners step up.
Military spending (and deficit spending in general) is a major issue I’m concerned about, and I’m unhappy with both major parties here. I like Trump’s pressure on the EU to step up their part, but I don’t like his increases to military spending. I like Biden’s and Harris focus on social programs instead of military spending, but I don’t like their lack of cuts. Neither party is actually interested in turning swords into plow shears, they just court the military industrial complex differently.
We need to increase taxes and cut spending, yet both parties seem to do the opposite.
The US WANTS to be in those bases because it gives them a lot of soft power in foreign relationships, and a base to project power in the part of the world.
If the US gives up NATO, you can also kiss goodbye to any sort of influence on the European countries decision making, as well as any resemblance of military logistic in that part of the world (as well as any sales of military equipment to European countries as it’s starting to happen, with many countries investing in their own military industrial complexes). This is why in the past 50 years, regardless of the party, every single US president supported NATO regardless of spendings. It took a moron to say they want out
The US WANTS to be in those bases because it gives them a lot of soft power in foreign relationships
I’d say that military bases within European countries is the definition of projecting hard power. If 40 000 soldiers in a military base are called ‘soft power’, what’s hard power then? Nuking the city?
40k really isn’t that many, especially when it comes to war. That said, those bases can likely handle a lot higher population, which would rapidly increase in wartime.
So, the US wants to lose the only influence it actually has on Europe?
I say go for it.
40k Us troops to stationed in Germany alone to defend Europe from Russia who is slaughtering ukrianians… Instead of you know…
Sure US has no influence…
How do you think it costs US taxpyer?
Removed by mod
After war in urkaine started why did germany authorize +7k surge?
Asking for a friend…
So much cope and denial in this thread haha
pathetic
Oh nooooooo! The poor tax payer helping secure the planet he lives on. How tragic!
Must be nice being a German when Americans pays for your shit.
Fucking parasites.
Removed by mod
solid understanding how european security works right here ;)
Yeah because a magic border makes it so that things don’t affect all of us. Isn’t that wonderful?
I legit don’t understand how anyone can think so small.
If a fire starts in a city where everyone has your attitude, how long before it all burns down?
Whether we like it or not, borders aren’t magical lines that protect us from the damage done behind one of those lines. Humanity is responsible for the wellbeing of humanity. No silly little line is going to change that.
Imagine the consequences we’d still be suffering (yes, we. All of us) if the US hadn’t joined in WWII.
I honestly don’t understand how anyone can think of their fellow humans as parasites. We’re all in this together. One big ego with enough support can destroy all of our lives and throw us back into the dark ages.
We have thousands of years of history to guide us. Look into it.
Sure, but it’s not the US’s job to protect the world. I’m a US citizen, and I’m not a fan of us spending ~5x vs Germany on defense, especially when Germany is such an economic powerhouse in the EU.
I would really like to cut defense spending, but for that to happen, other NATO countries need to increase their defense spending. I absolutely think we should stay in NATO (for the reasons you stated), but NATO is supposed to be an alliance, not a set of countries protected by the US. Yes, it’s in our interest to protect the EU, but it’s also in the EU’s interest to protect the US. We should have each other’s back.
No, they don’t. The US military spending far outpaces any other country. The US spends more than the next 10 countries combined! You don’t “need” that much spending, but your GDP is happy for that extra trillion every year that some day will trickle down for sure wink wink.
In summary, your rhetoric is pure propaganda of conservative talking points, unfortunately.
It’s really not.
While I agree we need to drastically reduce military spending, that decision has consequences. We’d need to shut down foreign bases, reduce naval presence around the globe, and increase our reliance on reserves instead of standing military. If we do that, that’ll embolden other countries (like China, Iran, and Russia) to fill that void unless other partners step up.
Military spending (and deficit spending in general) is a major issue I’m concerned about, and I’m unhappy with both major parties here. I like Trump’s pressure on the EU to step up their part, but I don’t like his increases to military spending. I like Biden’s and Harris focus on social programs instead of military spending, but I don’t like their lack of cuts. Neither party is actually interested in turning swords into plow shears, they just court the military industrial complex differently.
We need to increase taxes and cut spending, yet both parties seem to do the opposite.
The US WANTS to be in those bases because it gives them a lot of soft power in foreign relationships, and a base to project power in the part of the world.
If the US gives up NATO, you can also kiss goodbye to any sort of influence on the European countries decision making, as well as any resemblance of military logistic in that part of the world (as well as any sales of military equipment to European countries as it’s starting to happen, with many countries investing in their own military industrial complexes). This is why in the past 50 years, regardless of the party, every single US president supported NATO regardless of spendings. It took a moron to say they want out
I’d say that military bases within European countries is the definition of projecting hard power. If 40 000 soldiers in a military base are called ‘soft power’, what’s hard power then? Nuking the city?
40k really isn’t that many, especially when it comes to war. That said, those bases can likely handle a lot higher population, which would rapidly increase in wartime.