6 ms·

With reason. The military isn't something us Euros like to spend money on, the US has been whining about European NATO commitments since day 1. Healthcare, hou

by Feniks 9y ago

With reason. The military isn't something us Euros like to spend money on, the US has been whining about European NATO commitments since day 1. Healthcare, housing, education, infrastructure. Those are the things I take pride in. Not a new airforce jet.

gaius 9y ago
Those are the things I take pride in. Not a new airforce jet. But those things would never have happened without US defence spending, because the Europeans would have had to spend that money defending the Fulda Gap from the Third Shock Army. Doing that and funding a welfare state would indeed be something to be proud of, but don't kid yourself that Europe achieved this by its own effort.
bobthechef 9y ago
Quite the spoiled and childish attitude. Most NATO members aren't contributing the minimum and instead effectively externalize defense to the US. Then they make comments like yours that trivialize the importance of defense. At least the military leaders of the Eastern flank of NATO, located as it is on a geopolitical seismic fault and with Russia at arm's length, better appreciate the importance of defense. Of course, relying on the Eastern flank to function as a buffer without is, again, foolish and yet another blow to the beyond dubious solidarity of EU member states. (I am reminded of the Polish-Soviet war of 1920 and the Western attitudes then.) This has nothing to do with any pride. It has everything to do with security and survival. Without it, all those other things you mentioned you can kiss goodbye.
- jopsen 9y ago
  > Quite the spoiled and childish attitude. Most NATO members aren't contributing the minimum and instead effectively externalize defense to the US. There is no minimum. There is a non-binding spending target at 2% of GDP for 2020. Much of Eastern Europe is understandably already hitting that. Some of western Europe won't hit the targets. I for one understand why increased military spending (and international deployments) is a sensitive subject in Germany. But, nobody says the US have to be a 3.6% of GDP. Maybe you should target for 3% of GDP and spend some money on free education and healthcare. Maybe you could even go to 2% of GDP. See: http://money.cnn.com/2017/05/25/news/nato-trump-defense-spending/index.html http://money.cnn.com/2017/05/25/news/nato-trump-defense-spen...
  - dragonwriter 9y ago
    The best way to get European allies up to 2% is for the US to make clear moved down toward 2%. As long as the US is going to sacrifice it's citizens welfare to find Europe's defense, why shouldn't Europe let them and focus on domestic welfare?
    - jopsen 9y ago
      In fact, the US could probably improve it's security situation by making an agreement with China and Russia to reduce military spending. And then have it's European allies reach their 2% goal. Allowing the US to have it's cake and eat it too :) But Americans aren't smart enough to vote for less military, or disarmerment... And with so much money on politics there is no chance anyone dares to reduce the size of the US defense budget.
colemannugent 9y ago
Nobody takes pride in a new jet save the manufacturers and the people who fly it. People do take pride in the security and strength a jet provides in times of crisis. You can't achieve any of the things you take pride in without the ability to defend yourself. In your case, you have America do it for you. What would happen if America didn't spend more than Switzerland's entire GDP on defense?
- ivan_gammel 9y ago
  How exactly American military spending in Iraq or Pacific makes Europe more safe? Wasn't it that trillion USD spent to replace Saddam with a puppet state that pave the way for ISIS, which now attacks European cities?
  - rayiner 9y ago
    The Iraq and Afghanistan wars were a disaster. But without American military protection during the Cold War, there are a lot of Europeans that'd be speaking Russian now.
    - ivan_gammel 9y ago
      Questionable. USSR had much more conventional military power and strategic balance was defined by presence of nuclear weapons at both sides. But it's not that expensive and it's not only US who had them in NATO or in Europe. US saved Europe from Soviet invasion in 1940-1950s, but later it's not so clear, whether role of USA was decisive.
  - colemannugent 9y ago
    I agree with your sentiment completely. In this case corrupt politicians created a crisis, and it is a shame that hangs over American international politics. As someone who believes in a smaller role for the American federal government, the idea that the American taxpayer actually paid money to destabilize a region and create an enemy that has routinely harassed us and our allies is sickening. But not that long ago in the Pacific Theater the US intervened to stop a very determined Imperial Japan. Without that intervention China and other Asian nations may not have been able to survive. Nowadays, Japan has no need for much of a military as the US is more than happy to help out one of our now good allies and trade partners. The idea of Japan being threatened by a possible North Korean attack provokes a protective response from most Americans I know. I'm sure our Japanese allies are very grateful that they can focus their government spending on other things that matter to them like the incredible standard of living they enjoy.
jopsen 9y ago
Ofcourse the US is whining, they are selling most of the arms too... Increasing defense budgets is good business for the US. Yes, some of it is justified, and NATO countries have agreed on non-binding spending targets for 2020: To be fair, many of the Eastern European countries have hit said spending targets ahead of time too.
gozur88 9y ago
We've been "whining" about it because it allows you to spend on social programs without worrying about your security. The money we spend on your security would be better spent at home on our social programs.
- AlexCoventry 9y ago
  More likely it would be used to justify yet another tax cut for the rich.
  - deleted 9y ago
    [deleted]
synicalx 9y ago
> Those are the things I take pride in. Not a new airforce jet. Unfortunately, all those nice things go away if your adversary decides to take pride in their new airforce jets.

by Feniks 9y ago

gaius 9y ago

Those are the things I take pride in. Not a new airforce jet. But those things would never have happened without US defence spending, because the Europeans would have had to spend that money defending the Fulda Gap from the Third Shock Army. Doing that and funding a welfare state would indeed be something to be proud of, but don't kid yourself that Europe achieved this by its own effort.

bobthechef 9y ago

Quite the spoiled and childish attitude. Most NATO members aren't contributing the minimum and instead effectively externalize defense to the US. Then they make comments like yours that trivialize the importance of defense. At least the military leaders of the Eastern flank of NATO, located as it is on a geopolitical seismic fault and with Russia at arm's length, better appreciate the importance of defense. Of course, relying on the Eastern flank to function as a buffer without is, again, foolish and yet another blow to the beyond dubious solidarity of EU member states. (I am reminded of the Polish-Soviet war of 1920 and the Western attitudes then.) This has nothing to do with any pride. It has everything to do with security and survival. Without it, all those other things you mentioned you can kiss goodbye.

jopsen 9y ago
> Quite the spoiled and childish attitude. Most NATO members aren't contributing the minimum and instead effectively externalize defense to the US. There is no minimum. There is a non-binding spending target at 2% of GDP for 2020. Much of Eastern Europe is understandably already hitting that. Some of western Europe won't hit the targets. I for one understand why increased military spending (and international deployments) is a sensitive subject in Germany. But, nobody says the US have to be a 3.6% of GDP. Maybe you should target for 3% of GDP and spend some money on free education and healthcare. Maybe you could even go to 2% of GDP. See: http://money.cnn.com/2017/05/25/news/nato-trump-defense-spending/index.html http://money.cnn.com/2017/05/25/news/nato-trump-defense-spen...
- dragonwriter 9y ago
  The best way to get European allies up to 2% is for the US to make clear moved down toward 2%. As long as the US is going to sacrifice it's citizens welfare to find Europe's defense, why shouldn't Europe let them and focus on domestic welfare?
  - jopsen 9y ago
    In fact, the US could probably improve it's security situation by making an agreement with China and Russia to reduce military spending. And then have it's European allies reach their 2% goal. Allowing the US to have it's cake and eat it too :) But Americans aren't smart enough to vote for less military, or disarmerment... And with so much money on politics there is no chance anyone dares to reduce the size of the US defense budget.

colemannugent 9y ago

Nobody takes pride in a new jet save the manufacturers and the people who fly it. People do take pride in the security and strength a jet provides in times of crisis. You can't achieve any of the things you take pride in without the ability to defend yourself. In your case, you have America do it for you. What would happen if America didn't spend more than Switzerland's entire GDP on defense?

ivan_gammel 9y ago
How exactly American military spending in Iraq or Pacific makes Europe more safe? Wasn't it that trillion USD spent to replace Saddam with a puppet state that pave the way for ISIS, which now attacks European cities?
- rayiner 9y ago
  The Iraq and Afghanistan wars were a disaster. But without American military protection during the Cold War, there are a lot of Europeans that'd be speaking Russian now.
  - ivan_gammel 9y ago
    Questionable. USSR had much more conventional military power and strategic balance was defined by presence of nuclear weapons at both sides. But it's not that expensive and it's not only US who had them in NATO or in Europe. US saved Europe from Soviet invasion in 1940-1950s, but later it's not so clear, whether role of USA was decisive.
- colemannugent 9y ago
  I agree with your sentiment completely. In this case corrupt politicians created a crisis, and it is a shame that hangs over American international politics. As someone who believes in a smaller role for the American federal government, the idea that the American taxpayer actually paid money to destabilize a region and create an enemy that has routinely harassed us and our allies is sickening. But not that long ago in the Pacific Theater the US intervened to stop a very determined Imperial Japan. Without that intervention China and other Asian nations may not have been able to survive. Nowadays, Japan has no need for much of a military as the US is more than happy to help out one of our now good allies and trade partners. The idea of Japan being threatened by a possible North Korean attack provokes a protective response from most Americans I know. I'm sure our Japanese allies are very grateful that they can focus their government spending on other things that matter to them like the incredible standard of living they enjoy.

jopsen 9y ago

Ofcourse the US is whining, they are selling most of the arms too... Increasing defense budgets is good business for the US. Yes, some of it is justified, and NATO countries have agreed on non-binding spending targets for 2020: To be fair, many of the Eastern European countries have hit said spending targets ahead of time too.

gozur88 9y ago

We've been "whining" about it because it allows you to spend on social programs without worrying about your security. The money we spend on your security would be better spent at home on our social programs.

AlexCoventry 9y ago
More likely it would be used to justify yet another tax cut for the rich.
- deleted 9y ago
  [deleted]

synicalx 9y ago

> Those are the things I take pride in. Not a new airforce jet. Unfortunately, all those nice things go away if your adversary decides to take pride in their new airforce jets.