How NATO went from championing free speech to destroying it

[Samm]

Are you talking about Europe as a whole?

[conan]

@Imel

Good job see all the sacrifices you ever made, money you ever spent be pissed away now.

Maybe Irish people need to sacrifice their standards of living and put their money where their mouth is.

For forum readers.

The Irish people has one if not worlds highest standards of living.

Why is that? Massive trade surplus…in fact Ireland has the highest trade surplus that any other country in the world…and they commit zero to their defense…0.

And to be lectured by them is a insult.

Think about it ImeI

[Imel]

Yes no point in talking about an inconsequential island who’s fate is tied to Europe either way.

[Imel]

We pay income taxes up to 40% so any benefits we receive from social programmes come from that.
And being a neutral country doesn’t mean squat because what happens in Europe happens to us.
We have taken hundreds of thousands of Ukrainian refugees for example.
Europe is not benefiting from this war, in any way.

[Samm]

@Imel

Yes no point in talking about an inconsequential island who’s fate is tied to Europe either way.

So you acknowledge that the money and sacrifices (blood) the US has spent on Europe are being pissed away. Good. It’s a start.

[STODR]

He also admits th paying zero in defense but enjoying it’s benefits.

[JayJay]

@e7alr

That is the salient point. They prioritized their domestic social spending over national defense with the view that US combat readiness meant they didn’t really need to protect themselves from high intensity combat.

Even had they chosen to prioritize military spending, we wouldn’t have reduced ours.

[TheRedComet]

It must be ■■■■■■■ nice I admit.

[Samm]

@STODR

He also admits to paying zero in defense but enjoying it’s benefits.

I believe “she” is her preferred pronoun.

[Samm]

@JayJay

@e7alr

That is the salient point. They prioritized their domestic social spending over national defense with the view that US combat readiness meant they didn’t really need to protect themselves from high intensity combat.

Even had they chosen to prioritize military spending, we wouldn’t have reduced ours.

What does that do with them paying their agreed to share?

[TheRedComet]

Immaterial. It’s about NATO supposedly being about equal sacrifice. Not about what we do. We meet our obligations. Hell we got way above and beyond.

[e7alr]

@JayJay

@e7alr

That is the salient point. They prioritized their domestic social spending over national defense with the view that US combat readiness meant they didn’t really need to protect themselves from high intensity combat.

Even had they chosen to prioritize military spending, we wouldn’t have reduced ours.

We set our defense spending at the level we think is necessary to protect our nation. And we don’t set it with NATO protecting us in mind. We go it alone quite often. These European NATO members on the other hand, most assuredly set their defense spending under the assumption that the combat readiness of the US provides the necessary deterrence to prevent them from being attacked, for fear of a US military response. Trump didn’t say pay your share (which Progressives usually scream for) so the US could reduce it’s military readiness, he said pay their share to increase the overall military readiness of the organization, which would provide even more deterrence.

[TheRedComet]

Thank you.

All I’m saying is why should they get a bad ass welfare state while we sacrifice ours to protect them?

[Samm]

@e7alr

@JayJay

@e7alr

That is the salient point. They prioritized their domestic social spending over national defense with the view that US combat readiness meant they didn’t really need to protect themselves from high intensity combat.

Even had they chosen to prioritize military spending, we wouldn’t have reduced ours.

We set our defense spending at the level we think is necessary to protect our nation. And we don’t set it with NATO protecting us in mind. We go it alone quite often. These European NATO members on the other hand, most assuredly set their defense spending under the assumption that the combat readiness of the US provides the necessary deterrence to prevent them from being attacked, for fear of a US military response. Trump didn’t say pay your share (which Progressives usually scream for) so the US could reduce it’s military readiness, he said pay their share to increase the overall military readiness of the organization, which would provide even more deterrence.

Exactly.

What most people do not seem to understand is that the 2% of GDP for the military is NOT to directly fund NATO, it is to fund the military in each individual member country so that all members are adequately funded to be able to continue contribute militarily should the need arise. Each country is obligated to come to the aid of each other. To do so, they have to be capable of doing so on day one and that requires ongoing funding of their military at a certain level. By unanimous agreement, they have determined that the minimum funding level is 2% of GDP. That the US has chosen to fund military at nearly twice that level, is immaterial to the agreement.

[Imel]

No we are a neutral country but are enjoying the benefits of hundreds of thousands of refugees coming here because of a war we didn’t fund.
Can you say the same.

[TheRedComet]

Hey now we took in our fair share of Ukrainian refugees.

It’s not our fault you can get from Ukraine to other parts of Europe by walking or driving. Whereas getting here is a plane ride.

[Imel]

No but think of it as defeating a common enemy not helping Europe, which it is not.

[TheRedComet]

Are we supposed to be fighting Russia or something?

Because I can point to 3,000 nuclear weapons that say that’s not the best idea.

[Imel]

That used to be your position.

[TheRedComet]

No, our position was “let’s deter the USSR from doing something stupid with our own nuclear weapons buildup.”

You do know my country spent 7 trillion dollars on nuclear weapons during the Cold War right? Imagine the schools we could have built with that money. We could have eradicated homelessness with a fraction of that money.