The reason for the invasion was to kill terrorists and hold those responsible for the attack accountable. Then it became another decade long war with the goal of nation building with people that just want to fight each other.
White Libs More Likely to Have Mental Health Problems
- Thread starter FreedomWins
- Start date
Well, BS, since that country was governed by said terrorists how were we going to insure that the terrorists didn’t return If we didn’t stay long enough to help them establish an alternative? Terrorists stay in power by fear and intimidatio. The people needed a secure alternative to believe in.
Because it was a pointless war that cost hundreds of thousands of lives all to enrich defense contractors.
Why aren’t you campaigning to bring our troops home from Europe, South Korea, and Japan?
Are they in immediate danger in a war zone in those other countries? There is strategic value to maintain an American air base in Germany that has very low risk to the military personnel stationed there.
Actually there is no strategic value that isn't tied up in maintaining American military hegemony over supply routes. It's all in the service of empire and America's nearing the end of her time in that role.
I like that we can strike an enemy anywhere in the world within hours of the order because of the reach of our military. But that's just my opinion.
Oh uh...we agree on something. War sucks and there's going to be collateral damage. It's part of living in a hell hole.
It's nice to finally find common ground with you on something.
What a bullshit analogy. You're equating people, who got a disease and died, during the course of their normal lives with people, who volunteered to serve their country and died, due to the incompetence of their Commander in Chief. The latter was avoidable. The former was less so.
Good Grief. The brain has been washed and it's in the spin cycle.
So Germany and the other Euro countries can’t defend themselves? BS. Ditto for Asia. I’m not saying we shouldn’t be involved and present in those countries. I’m saying we should not be there in the troop levels that we currently have. We pay the bulk of the costs for NATO.
It would appear this isn't accurate. Of NATO's whopping EUR 2.5B annual budget, we contribute a little over 16%. Same as Germany.
Funding NATO
NATO is resourced through the direct and indirect contributions of its members. NATO’s common funds are direct contributions to collective budgets, capabilities and programmes, which equate to only 0.3% of total Allied defence spending (approximately EUR 3.27 billion for 2023) to develop...
If you're basing this on Trump's "NATO members need to pay their fair share" stuff, you have a grain of truth, as not all members had met their agreement to spend 2% of their GDP on defense (though the deadline to meet that target is 2024). However, that's in reference to what they're supposed to spend on their OWN defense. It's not as if the US was/is making up the difference in what the other countries were/are spending. While Trump was successful at getting some NATO members to raise their own defense spending, you'll note that it didn't actually save us any money, as our defense spending increased under Trump.
The fact that our defense spending makes up about 2/3 of the total defense spending by NATO allies is simply the choice we've made as a country. We're under no obligation to NATO to spend as much on defense as we do.
That is a really dips@@t comment.
your last sentence is exactly my point. It has been simply our choice as a country to foot the bill for defending Europe, Japan, Taiwan, Korea, etc. in Europe we are way past time fo take the back seat in Europe’s defense. They have the wherewithal to take the lead. The Middle East has been and will always be a caldron of hate and war. As we pull out the risks of Americans dying at home increases dramatically. We are stupid to get out.It would appear this isn't accurate. Of NATO's whopping EUR 2.5B annual budget, we contribute a little over 16%. Same as Germany.
Funding NATO
NATO is resourced through the direct and indirect contributions of its members. NATO’s common funds are direct contributions to collective budgets, capabilities and programmes, which equate to only 0.3% of total Allied defence spending (approximately EUR 3.27 billion for 2023) to develop...www.nato.int
If you're basing this on Trump's "NATO members need to pay their fair share" stuff, you have a grain of truth, as not all members had met their agreement to spend 2% of their GDP on defense (though the deadline to meet that target is 2024). However, that's in reference to what they're supposed to spend on their OWN defense. It's not as if the US was/is making up the difference in what the other countries were/are spending. While Trump was successful at getting some NATO members to raise their own defense spending, you'll note that it didn't actually save us any money, as our defense spending increased under Trump.
The fact that our defense spending makes up about 2/3 of the total defense spending by NATO allies is simply the choice we've made as a country. We're under no obligation to NATO to spend as much on defense as we do.
I guess you're a military expert on the number of troops needed in each of the strategic theatres. Since when did you work for the pentagon?
The bulk of the cost of NATO isn't true.
So, this begs the question, by what percentage would you suggest we decrease our defense spending should European nations take the lead? Or, if not a specific number, would you at least support reduced defense spending in that circumstance? I know Trump pushed hard for NATO allies to increase their defense spending, but he also bragged about "rebuilding" our military and increasing spending. Republicans, generally, support increased defense spending.
Aside from the philosophical discussion, though, my main point was simply to illustrate that we don't actually pay for the majority of NATO costs.
True, I shouldn’t have limited the view to NATO only costs. and no, I have not worked in the pentagon. My views are not focused on military strategy. They are from the perspective that the EU has benefited enormously from our willingness to be the first line of defense against Russia. My question is why? In 1945 it was an absolute requirement that we keep Russia from taking over Europe. 75 years later we are still the main line of defense for all of Europe. Why? European economies have been rebuilt for decades their collective GDP is comparable to ours. If there is a shooting war with Russia our soldiers will be the first to die. Are you ok with that? I say BS to that! The Euros should be the front line for their countries.
Thanks for clarifying. Regarding maintaining bases in Europe, I'm not sure I disagree too much with the prospect of bringing those folks home, though I won't pretend to have adequate knowledge of how vital they are to our OWN security rather than just Europe's. My understanding of the NATO agreement, though, is that we'd be required to send troops to defend Europe from a Russian attack regardless of the spending levels of the European countries and their ability to effectively defend themselves. Presuming that's correct, the only way to prevent American military personnel from dying in a hypothetical Russian invasion of Europe would be to withdraw from NATO altogether.
Appreciate the consistency
. I'd also be in favor of reduced defense spending, considering we outspend our two presumed greatest military threats by 3x (China) and over 10x (Russia) and of the 11 highest-spending countries after us (which, when combined, still spend less than we do), 9 are our allies. Of course, the amount we spend is also wrapped up and inflated by the cash in the political system. That's a whole other issue that we don't need to get into now. Good chat!
@DG Boiler is starting to really distance himself from the others as the most mentally ill white liberal on the board!!
Report: Some Climate Change Activists Facing Mental Health Issues
https://www.breitbart.com/politics/...change-activists-facing-mental-health-issues/
https://www.breitbart.com/politics/...change-activists-facing-mental-health-issues/
@BuilderBob6 @indy35 @DG Boiler @PurdueFan1 @BNIBoiler @boilersteel110% accuracy from a satirical site no less.
@PurdueFan1 just can’t log off. He can’t help being a mentally insane white liberal!! Look at him go! Middle aged bald white guy in a white suburb defending the Democrats every day on an anonymous message board.
I actually think PF1 is a younger, idealistic recent graduate in his 20's who still believes what his liberal professors told him in college. He just seems to lack any life experience or harsh realities of the real world. He still believes we can all just get along and be nice to each other.
He posted his email address on the boards once so I know who he is!! Exactly what you would expect. Bald, white, middle aged. All of the crazy crying libs on the board are the same.
