in vietnam we did it alone and we dropped more bombs in vietnam than in ww2. that was afghanistan where 800 nato troops died, not iraq. we still have support in afghanistan not iraq.
We did not attack WARSAW PACK and Soviet ships in HAIPONG harbor supposedly because we did not want to expand the proxy war into a WWIII. I would have have attacked them but then I wold have attacked SOVIETS just because I would!
Its actually funny, Trump is so politically toxic that whatever he wants is actually less likely to be done. This is a fine example, NATO increased spending came out of the 2014 NATO summit in wales, since then NATO spending has gone up. Yet now because trump is pushing this irrationaly like crazy, talks to level of these increases are happening in several european countries. What trump doesnt realise is that he has zero credit and zero possibility to force any country to spend 1 cent more. That is of course if this actualyl means anything to him and is not just another bullet point he uses to dupe his voters.
What is the point of being in a "Self-Defense Pact" with folks who care so little about their Defense that it has fallen in disrepair? All throughout Europe, they don't care. In many places we cannot even move heavy military equipment on their road system because they haven't reinforced their bridges or they have overpasses that are too low. So, in an emergency, we can't effectively defend them, or it puts our troops at greater risks to defend them, because they have decided they would rather be socialist utopias that adequately protected from aggression, which is fine, but that makes them a terrible choice for a self-defense pact, because they see no reason for a robust military. As Gates pointed out while speaking for the Obama Administration, "Americans in the future may look at these costs and determine that they are not worth it." Well, we're here. And no, we are not going to beg them, if they want to be in a Self-Defense pact with us, they will need to meet their own commitments. We may leave NATO, it seems that we have a fundamental difference in our outlook. France left NATO for a while, and there was no widespread alarm on the Left. What is it that you fear?
Well reality is that even at todays expenditure without the US there isnt a country that can do anything against NATO. So most of NATO (included US) figured that those inflated cold war expenditures werent needed anymore. They are not worth it, US military expenditures are mainly political not for its safety. No clue what this have to do with "the left" or fear and yes the US can leave NATO, no problem actually. It will only once more lessen US influence on the world.
Really ? So you think that France and UK, two nations that possess the Bomb, need the "protection" of US ? That they could get invaded?... by who, by the way? What is ironic is that the Americans have chosen to maintain a monstrous army to maintain their military hegemony at the expense of basic social programs. Didn't Trump promise a strong army? As a result, the country is 50 years behind other western nations on universal health care and affordable education. But you don't want that in US, because it's communism....
To help prevent all of Europe from speaking Russian, at one time. You're right; EUROPE NEEDS TO GROW TF UP; it isn't post WW2 anymore...and they need to PAY FOR THEIR OWN DEFENSE.
Cool. So you agree that the US should dramatically CUT NATO spending...JUST LIKE PRES.TRUMP SAYS...let the Europeans pay for their OWN DEFENSE. MAGA !
The question you should be asking yourself, instead of repeating what Trump says, is whether it is in the interest of the US that Russia and China increase their influence on the world stage.
Oh...so now you switched positions. So you also support Pres.Trump CONFRONTING unfair tariffs from China etal. Cool Maybe you should be asking "Uranium One/ More flexible after my election/ Ordered a STAND DOWN on countermanding Russian meddling" Obama that question.
Right. And what did Obama do for eight years? He cut military spending, took the soldiers out of Iraq and redefined American involvement on the world stage. Trump does the opposite. He wants to invest massively in the army, at the expense of the budget, and force his allies to follow him in his madness.
As they say, in court, facts...not in evidence. The two major assertions here: (republican establishment of "this policy" whatever that means, and the "President destroying what the americans of all parties took 60 years to build") are contradictory. They are also historically inaccurate. The end of WWII was actually 73 years, and as we know, Truman was the primary architect of the military industrial state (something that Eisenhower (R) railed against at the time.) Second, if the effort to create global hegemony was bipartisan, it cannot entirely then be the fault only of Republicans for having created it. Third, it seems implausible that asking our partners to actually fulfil their contractual obligations is "destructive" to the alliance. I would point out that what is destructive are our partners who continue to renege on their portion of our agreements. It calls into question their willingness to provide for their own protections. I would point out that it was the neo-con wing of the democratic party (you remember the Clintons... right?) that created the doctrine that subsequent neo-cons relied on for a couple decades. Lest we forget this, it should also be noted that even when Hillary was dodging all those rockets on the beach in Bosnia (ok, she made it up) she was still planting the neo-con flag in support of her Neolithic view of globalist hegemony. But hey.. don't let the facts stop you from your fantasy.
Sometimes, I'd just like to get a refund on all the tax dollars that were wasted producing such an inaccurate view of history. Public education is massively failing......
Just like europe spent at the time, germany 3% until 1980's UK 5+% until 1980's. The real difference is that while most went down gradually, US had increases in the 1980's and the 2000's. Increases that were largely political and had little to do with defense of the US. They are, if the US doesnt agree with that: tough luck , go lock up some more children to make you feel better.
The are not; the US is footing the bill for the OVERWHELMING majority of Europe's defense, as the supplied chart CLEARLY SHOWS. Maybe it's time for the US to PULL OUT OF NATO...
You are mixing what the US is spending with "europe's defense" . In reality the US is barely spending anything on europe's defense, what is left in europe are logistic bases and barely any combat troops. Go ahead, again that will only weaken the US position.
Would you be super surprised when I said no? And that the original observation was an observation about actual history, and yours is about analysis? So, color me surprised again that I still don't have a refund in the mail....
