Opinion of trump blasting NATO for not meeting their defense requirements

[Atlas Has Shrugged]

How about we equalize things by having Americans spend less, instead of Europeans spending more? European militaries are powerful enough as it is.

A freaking men.

[DavidB.]

How about we equalize things by having Americans spend less, instead of Europeans spending more? European militaries are powerful enough as it is.

The French one perhaps, but Dutch soldiers having to yell "bang bang" when training because there is no money for ammunition is not a desirable or viable state of affairs.

[Since I'm the mad scientist proclaimed by myself]

The kind of dangerous stupidity typical of american exceptionalists.

[Antonio the Sixth]

How about we equalize things by having Americans spend less, instead of Europeans spending more? European militaries are powerful enough as it is.

The French one perhaps, but Dutch soldiers having to yell "bang bang" when training because there is no money for ammunition is not a desirable or viable state of affairs.

What do you think of the idea of a common European defense policy? At least in areas where all EU countries have common interests (such as Middle East policy) it should work pretty well at guaranteeing military strength without outsized expenses for individual countries.

[Fight for Trump]

The kind of dangerous stupidity typical of american exceptionalists.

Trump is the only President in recent history who has explicitly disavowed American Exceptionalism.

[Atlas Has Shrugged]

The kind of dangerous stupidity typical of american exceptionalists.

Trump is the only President in recent history who has explicitly disavowed American Exceptionalism.

Well, Obama did too in his first term. By his second he seemed to forget that he once said "and the Greeks believe in Greek exceptionalism" (which is true of every nation, he wasn't wrong).

[DavidB.]

What do you think of the idea of a common European defense policy? At least in areas where all EU countries have common interests (such as Middle East policy) it should work pretty well at guaranteeing military strength without outsized expenses for individual countries.

I'm honestly becoming more and more open to this. I don't want a European army, but it would be better for member states to specialize themselves, which may also mean that certain countries would drop certain parts of their army altogether (though obviously none of this should be forced on member states; I'm a big supporter of the model of different speeds). Merkel is right in that we cannot continue to rely on the U.S., and at the same time I feel it just doesn't make sense for smaller countries like the Netherlands to spend so much money in trying to prepare themselves for a conventional war of a type that would not take place that way anymore anyway; we all know warfare in the 21st century takes place differently. It's not that I mind spending money on defense, but if we do it, let's do it more efficiently and more effectively.

[NeverAgain]

Everyone ought to pay their fair share, and that's a discussion to be had... behind closed doors... and not at a memorial for victims of terrorism...

[Unconditional Surrender Truman]

Old School Jacobin Printingpress89       YaBB God ★★★★★ Posts: 5592

Re: Opinion of citizen genêt blasting US for not meeting their defense requirements « on: May 27, 1793 at 10:55:59 am » I have a better idea: any country who doesn't meet the terms of the 1778 Treaty of Alliance has to get involved in every conflict France is in. America would be nothing without French money, so those ungrateful Yankees should not have any say in world affairs.

[Atlas Has Shrugged]

Old School Jacobin Printingpress89       YaBB God ★★★★★ Posts: 5592

Re: Opinion of citizen genêt blasting US for not meeting their defense requirements « on: May 27, 1793 at 10:55:59 am » I have a better idea: any country who doesn't meet the terms of the 1778 Treaty of Alliance has to get involved in every conflict France is in. America would be nothing without French money, so those ungrateful Yankees should not have any say in world affairs.

Let's be real: we literally kept the French afloat twice afterwards in two larger and more consequential conflicts. France has a right to their "say" but not a right to make demands of us. They'll suffer the consequences on their own next time, hopefully.

Besides, France has been going at it alone since the era of DeGaulle. This chasm is nothing new. Awesome post regardless though, those never fail to crack me up.

[OSR stands with Israel]

Old School Jacobin Printingpress89       YaBB God ★★★★★ Posts: 5592

Re: Opinion of citizen genêt blasting US for not meeting their defense requirements « on: May 27, 1793 at 10:55:59 am » I have a better idea: any country who doesn't meet the terms of the 1778 Treaty of Alliance has to get involved in every conflict France is in. America would be nothing without French money, so those ungrateful Yankees should not have any say in world affairs.

Except America technically had none to do with world affairs then

[Unconditional Surrender Truman]

Let's be real: we literally kept the French afloat twice afterwards in two larger and more consequential conflicts.

Sure. My point is that arguing "gratitude" is a relevant idea in foreign affairs is a very silly line, and particularly tone-deaf coming from an American. Nations don't fulfill their obligations to their allies because it's 'morally right,' but because it's in their interest to do so. That, after all, is the reasoning behind Trump's position. I'm not attacking that proposition here so much as I am Computer89's post, which is generally very bad and completely misunderstands the situation.

Awesome post regardless though, those never fail to crack me up.

Thanks!

[Unconditional Surrender Truman]

Old School Jacobin Printingpress89       YaBB God ★★★★★ Posts: 5592

Re: Opinion of citizen genêt blasting US for not meeting their defense requirements « on: May 27, 1793 at 10:55:59 am » I have a better idea: any country who doesn't meet the terms of the 1778 Treaty of Alliance has to get involved in every conflict France is in. America would be nothing without French money, so those ungrateful Yankees should not have any say in world affairs.

Except America technically had none to do with world affairs then

From the French perspective, declaring neutrality was having an impact on world affairs, as it deprived their coalition of an expected ally. Refusing to get involved was widely perceived, in America and elsewhere, as a pro-English (or, at the very least, anti-French) position, and Genet responded accordingly.

[OSR stands with Israel]

Old School Jacobin Printingpress89       YaBB God ★★★★★ Posts: 5592

Re: Opinion of citizen genêt blasting US for not meeting their defense requirements « on: May 27, 1793 at 10:55:59 am » I have a better idea: any country who doesn't meet the terms of the 1778 Treaty of Alliance has to get involved in every conflict France is in. America would be nothing without French money, so those ungrateful Yankees should not have any say in world affairs.

Except America technically had none to do with world affairs then

From the French perspective, declaring neutrality was having an impact on world affairs, as it deprived their coalition of an expected ally. Refusing to get involved was widely perceived, in America and elsewhere, as a pro-English (or, at the very least, anti-French) position, and Genet responded accordingly.

We technically did get involved much later in 1812

[Unconditional Surrender Truman]

Old School Jacobin Printingpress89       YaBB God ★★★★★ Posts: 5592

Re: Opinion of citizen genêt blasting US for not meeting their defense requirements « on: May 27, 1793 at 10:55:59 am » I have a better idea: any country who doesn't meet the terms of the 1778 Treaty of Alliance has to get involved in every conflict France is in. America would be nothing without French money, so those ungrateful Yankees should not have any say in world affairs.

Except America technically had none to do with world affairs then

From the French perspective, declaring neutrality was having an impact on world affairs, as it deprived their coalition of an expected ally. Refusing to get involved was widely perceived, in America and elsewhere, as a pro-English (or, at the very least, anti-French) position, and Genet responded accordingly.

We technically did get involved much later in 1812

Eh, that's a stretch. It'd be more accurate to say that we took advantage of an existing war between Britain and France to start a separate war against the former.

[Kingpoleon]

Old School Jacobin Printingpress89       YaBB God ★★★★★ Posts: 5592

Re: Opinion of citizen genêt blasting US for not meeting their defense requirements « on: May 27, 1793 at 10:55:59 am » I have a better idea: any country who doesn't meet the terms of the 1778 Treaty of Alliance has to get involved in every conflict France is in. America would be nothing without French money, so those ungrateful Yankees should not have any say in world affairs.

Except America technically had none to do with world affairs then

From the French perspective, declaring neutrality was having an impact on world affairs, as it deprived their coalition of an expected ally. Refusing to get involved was widely perceived, in America and elsewhere, as a pro-English (or, at the very least, anti-French) position, and Genet responded accordingly.

We technically did get involved much later in 1812

We didn't commit nearly enough to help Napoleon I, and he was essentially the only world leader who supported the American standard of human rights.

[Middle-aged Europe]

It was Trump being Trump... so HP, obviously.

[🦀🎂🦀🎂]

A good example of how dumb the pledge is would be to compare the roles of Greece (high spender) and Denmark (low spender) in NATO. The former meets its targets but that's because the military is inefficient and top heavy in Greece, with the economy preventing GDP from rising so the target does not constantly rise. Other than that, it's basically dead weight in the alliance - Greece isn't known for any military specialty and doesn't really participate in missions. Denmark spends about 1.2 percent of its GDP, but it gets far more from its spending, actually has specialties that make it useful and participated in missions more.

The target is basically a punishment for being efficient and having a good economy.

It's also ludicrously obvious why the us spends a lot more than Europe - because the us a) used its military as a substitute for welfare and b) has its fingers in a lot more pies.

[thumb21]

FF. It drives more wedges within NATO that means hopefully it can be disbanded soon.