followed tags: 145
followed domains: 3
badges given: 31 of 36
member for: 1209 days
- But just like the Bible, everyone knows the books but nobody reads the damn thing.
My tone comes off angry, but I'm not actually. Apologies. Perhaps... frustrated? At the end of the day I think if NATO were to come to an end Canada would remain generally unaffected because of other treaties that involve just the US/Can and US/Can/Mex. We'd probably get dragged into a few wars in Europe, but that happens now anyways - it's the price of having the Queen on our cash and a legislative monarchy.
I'm on the reply page so I'm sort of moving backwards through your comment with responses.
- Thus the argument: treaties are things you have to abide by even when they're stupid. There is nothing in the NATO charter that says "mutual assistance if we feel like it." Which calls the whole treaty into question.
I think there's a distinct difference here between the example you're citing and the entrance of the US into Iraq, and not just where the theatre of war was. In your example, Britain and Russia get dragged into a defensive war because Germany wanted parts of France it decided are part of "Old Prussia", areas like Burgundy, Alsace, etc. Italy and Austria-Hungary are dragged in because Germany knew that it would be unable to win. I wouldn't say that Italy and A-H were "obliged" to come in on their treaty, but I would say that it was in their best interests to do it - If Germany loses there's no point in having a treaty with them because they're weak, and if Germany wins then there's no guarantee they'll honour it for you because you reneg'd, so there's no point in having a treaty.
In Iraq, I see NATO as the Italy and Austria-Hungary to the US's Germany. Iraq, in this case, is France without any friends except maybe Saudi Arabia. The US doesn't need anyone to go in with them, and is just bringing their buddies along because they want to make sure they look legit while they do this shady thing. Are treaty holders obliged to follow in with aggressive action when the original purpose of the treaty was defensive? Good question. I imagine it's covered in NATO documents somewhere, or else in UN documents - Somebody's got a rule about it, I'm sure. Regardless, NATO wasn't at the same impasse the Triple Alliance was in - The worst that the US would get was a blood nose - which it did - by having to admit there were no WMD's.
- And the argument is that those proxy wars are irrelevant to Europe, and that the problems of the Near Abroad do not belong to the US.
Well I would argue that the current proxy war in Syria is rather relevant to the EU, considering it's one of the largest destabilizing elements of the EuroZone at the moment, and policy regarding refugees from that same war is one of the primary reasons European leaders are getting elected and booted out at the moment.
Russian aggression in Ukraine was given an excuse because there were talks of Ukraine joining NATO. It is still directly affecting Europe right now not just through the continued tension in Ukraine, but also because a large portion of Europe still gets its natural gas from Russia - occasionally Russia plays a power game and either raises prices or turns off the tap altogether.
Are these situations what NATO was for? Idunno, probably not. But it's what we have.
- What you're seeing is an illustration that the United States wants a military strong enough to defeat literally everyone else.
I understand the theory behind having an army of that size, But I see that encouraging someone else to have more military spending is a way to guarantee more spending of your own, which is already functionally unsustainable for the US. In your strategy you have to match everyone else in money spent, dollar for dollar. If the EU suddenly doubled its military budget, you would have to add another percentage of GDP going towards your military - You'd bankrupt yourself trying to keep up. It's nuts.
Also, what's the threat? Large scale ground war the likes of WW2 is unlikely to happen again - technology has changed the battlefield too much. Sure, having the latest and greatest tech is going to be a big advantage, but you currently have a gigantic infantry which will end up doing not very much on the field of battle if the US ended up going to war with China, say. It's way easier to target other countries at their vulnerable tech centers, their markets, their classified information. As much as the US has an advanced military, the way its primary function is still set up is going to leave you guys like the proverbial giant with feet of clay - overspending like crazy to get nowhere near the result.
Then again, I'm talking as if I'm some military expert - I'm obviously not.
With most people I meet, it's because they're speaking too quickly, or without thought. Not that you are being thoughtless, just that you are going through the quickest possible brain pathways to get what you want to say out as fast as possible.
One strat I've suggested to people that has been generally successful is to take 2 seconds and prepare yourself - "I know i'm going to be referring to this person. their new pronoun is "X", so I'll make sure to use it." - then go on with what you were about to say.
A side benefit is it means you give your brain a second for sober second thought for the dumb thing you might have been about to say.
- Third, given the fact that the EU has almost as large a GDP and almost 200 million more people than the U.S., why isn’t Europe’s collective contribution to NATO’s military capability larger than the U.S.’? By contribution, I don’t simply mean money, but a suitably large, trained and equipped force able to support the wars that are being fought now.
This argument, and the accompanying graph, are fucking horsehit. How about this graph?
I will remind you that the argument is for "a suitably large, trained and equipped force". My counter argument is why the fuck do you guys spend so much fucking money in comparison to the next 10 put together, and only have "a suitably large, trained and equipped force". Your military's Budget is 54% of your government 's budget - And that's at it's current low of 3% of your GDP.
And don't cry "world's police" to me. For one, most of the world never sees your policing, and most of what was termed "policing" was just poxy war with the USSR and then Russia. I say "was" like it still isn't - See Syria right now.
Is NATO obsolete? I don't know, does the US still have proxy wars with Russia, and do the former Soviet states still fear being subsumed back into Russia?
- The U.S. is not going to war in Ukraine, and Russia is not going to war there, either.
Russia didn't have to go to war. they just took created some political instability within the Ukrainian parliament, then walked in and took what they wanted from Ukraine - their warm water port, which Russia had been using for decades anyways - and no one had the political testicular fortitude to call their shit.
This article is just silly to me. It's like it's using the US's bloated defense spending as a way to say that no one else in NATO is pulling their weight. THEN it has the audacity to say that NATO didn't pull its weight after 9/11 because we all knew that the WMD's were bullshit and that the US was just going in after oil and to get rid of a leader that had worn out his usefulness.
I think it's just that it's interesting to look at critiques of political systems. Adam Smith doesn't have the same name brand when it comes to Capitalism that Marx does when it comes to Communism, so it's easier to see posts about marx and communism more generally.
I find it interesting, personally, to see how different the modern day conceptions of these two schools of thought are from their origins, and how they contrast with the views of their originators.
Indeed - I saw that part. It still surprises me that they would allow someone like Manning to progress past basic. I was under the impression that if you don't do things right, the army just makes you keep doing them until you DO do them right. The whole tenacity, never give up thing.
- Edit: I'm sorry for misgendering Manning, I make this mistake all the time with my transgender or otherwise not-what-I-am people and they yell at me for it all the time. I'm not a bigot or anything lmao
you fixed it - that's the important part.
man that comment section is awful.
A few people there, however, ask a very good question - How was manning able to get past basic training without being booted? I've always assumed that Basic was a bit like the first weeks of a new job - If shit's not working out, they give you the heave-ho. At the very least at the end of Basic, isn't there some sort of "yeah, this person's performance is so bad we can't keep them"measure? I know the army's always desperate for more folks, but fuck.
- The difficulty is the minute that class got there, it was abundantly clear that I don't belong. Nobody in the birth community says "husband" because it's offensive. We're all "partners." And we're all "supportive" and we're all expected to get out of the way so they can focus on women's mysteries. Except during the birth where the philosophy is basically "thou art thy partner's bitch who is suffering more than you can ever know to bring about the miracle of life you're lucky we let you in the room worm now help your master breathe!"
this attitude blows my mind - Always has. I mean, as feminists aren't we supposed to be encouraging men to be more involved with their children? Doesn't that means bringing men into spaces like these and saying yes, you do in fact belong here?
Fuck man, idunno. People often have blinders on to their own actions, especially when they are in opposition to their purported beliefs. One of the benefits of how my depression manifests is that I can usually see when I'm not practicing what I preach - because I'll flagellate myself about it.
reminds me of