5 ms·

$768B is a great deal for not being under a russian or Chinese hegemony and world philosophy. Freedom comes before universal healthcare.

by rafale 5y ago

huitzitziltzin 5y ago
You will be delighted to learn of the existence of (inter alia) - France - Japan - Australia - Great Britain - Finland - Taiwan - New Zealand - South Korea - and many more! All countries which do not spend anything like what we do on defense, are not under Chinese or russian domination, AND nearly all have longer life expectancy than we do while at the same time spending much much much less on a per capita basis on health care than the US does.
- lp0_on_fire 5y ago
  Each one of those countries you listed _heavily_ relies on the United States military being on their side in the event of a war. You can't make the argument you're making without at least acknowledging US hegemony (which we can argue is good or bad).
  - huitzitziltzin 5y ago
    Totally agree with you! Sounds like the found a smart way to reduce their defense budgets, no??
    - s1artibartfast 5y ago
      And The US gets something from it as well. They get political backup from their coalition and the ability to project hard and soft power from most of these countries. This of course leads to financial return on investment from this military expense
      - sfifs 5y ago
        The biggest benefit US gets from its massive millitary is that the Dollar is the de-facto global reserve currency and energy is priced in dollars. This makes debt essentially free for the US government (since the demand for dollars and dollar denominated tresury bonds remains high). It also enables strategic energy and reaource extraction companies from US to essentially get their way in most places.
  - triceratops 5y ago
    In a war, I'd bet on a France-UK-Germany alliance against Russia any day. Ditto for a South Korea-Japan-Taiwan-India alliance against China. They might not win but they're strong enough to keep from being pushed around.
    - lp0_on_fire 5y ago
      > They might not win but they're strong enough to keep from being pushed around. Emphasis on "They might not win". Which is exactly why they rely on US support in the event of one of those scenarios - it increases their chances of winning by a lot.
      - triceratops 5y ago
        They don't need to actually win. They just have to be strong enough (or have enough nukes, which both these alliances possess) to make victory too costly for the aggressor. If you're Russia or China, you also have to contend with the possibility that your opponents might actually win. Which would be disastrous for you. Also this is assuming those countries' current military strength. However, if the US military was weaker, they would probably strengthen significantly. Barring India, they're all rich, technologically advanced, economically developed countries capable of projecting a lot of military power.
    - kofejnik 5y ago
      France will surrender a week in, Germany will go pragmatic and negotiate another pipeline after their chancellor becomes a VP at gazprom, and Britain will appease, as Putin is reasonable and only wants small parts of Wales and Poland
      - sofixa 5y ago
        You can't be serious. You know France has nuclear weapons (including a 24/7 nuclear ballistic missile submarine patrol) and a world class military, right? Just because you lack an understanding in military affairs and history, and have heard of a huge military disaster ( of course ignoring all the military successes) doesn't give you a right to insultingly dismiss whole countries' military capabilities.
- 908B64B197 5y ago
  - Japan - Finland - Taiwan - South Korea I've got bad news for you. The reason these countries even still exist today is the US defense budget. Out of the rest you named, France is the only one capable of projecting force on a world-wide scale. There's a reason previous administrations tried to get other NATO countries to increase their spending: it's not cheap to keep footing the bill for everyone else!
  - sofixa 5y ago
    I see about South Korea and to an extent Taiwan ( one might argue Taiwan is not a country), but care to elaborate on Japan and Finland? Either if you assume that without the US the Soviets would have conquered both after WW2, the Soviet Union no longer exists, and all constituent countries are now independent.
    - GauntletWizard 5y ago
      Anyone arguing that Taiwan is not a country is not arguing in good faith, unless they're making the joke that the Republic of China still has sovereignty and will one day suppress that nasty uprising.
      - sofixa 5y ago
        Precisely, it's complicated. Nobody recognises Taiwan as an independent country and they don't really claim to be one; some small countries recognise the Republic of China as the China, but the vast majority including the UN, count the PRC as the China, and nominally the island of Taiwan is a part of China. Of course, for most intents and purposes Taiwan is an independent country, but them declaring it as such or anyone recognising it would piss off the PRC, who still view it as a part of a unified China. The civil war ended 70 years ago, they should let it go, but that's easier said than done.
- Gortal278 5y ago
  > All countries which do not spend anything like what we do on defense, are not under Chinese or russian domination, AND nearly all have longer life expectancy than we do while at the same time spending much much much less on a per capita basis on health care than the US does. They are under US domination, though we call it Hegemony. The 2% of national budget spent of the defense of these countries is not holding the geopolitical balance of power in check. Infact these counties would need to pay much more without the US.
jevoten 5y ago
$768B is a parasitic drain on your economy that is accelerating the rate at which China is overtaking the US. The Soviet Union collapsed in great part because they could not keep up economically. The same is happening to the US now. Besides, that $768B is spent on military operations for all sorts of purposes, not just "freedom". Fat defense contractor margins are another big chunk.

$768B is a great deal for not being under a russian or Chinese hegemony and world philosophy. Freedom comes before universal healthcare.

by rafale 5y ago

$768B is a great deal for not being under a russian or Chinese hegemony and world philosophy. Freedom comes before universal healthcare.

huitzitziltzin 5y ago

You will be delighted to learn of the existence of (inter alia) - France - Japan - Australia - Great Britain - Finland - Taiwan - New Zealand - South Korea - and many more! All countries which do not spend anything like what we do on defense, are not under Chinese or russian domination, AND nearly all have longer life expectancy than we do while at the same time spending much much much less on a per capita basis on health care than the US does.

lp0_on_fire 5y ago
Each one of those countries you listed _heavily_ relies on the United States military being on their side in the event of a war. You can't make the argument you're making without at least acknowledging US hegemony (which we can argue is good or bad).
- huitzitziltzin 5y ago
  Totally agree with you! Sounds like the found a smart way to reduce their defense budgets, no??
  - s1artibartfast 5y ago
    And The US gets something from it as well. They get political backup from their coalition and the ability to project hard and soft power from most of these countries. This of course leads to financial return on investment from this military expense
    - sfifs 5y ago
      The biggest benefit US gets from its massive millitary is that the Dollar is the de-facto global reserve currency and energy is priced in dollars. This makes debt essentially free for the US government (since the demand for dollars and dollar denominated tresury bonds remains high). It also enables strategic energy and reaource extraction companies from US to essentially get their way in most places.
- triceratops 5y ago
  In a war, I'd bet on a France-UK-Germany alliance against Russia any day. Ditto for a South Korea-Japan-Taiwan-India alliance against China. They might not win but they're strong enough to keep from being pushed around.
  - lp0_on_fire 5y ago
    > They might not win but they're strong enough to keep from being pushed around. Emphasis on "They might not win". Which is exactly why they rely on US support in the event of one of those scenarios - it increases their chances of winning by a lot.
    - triceratops 5y ago
      They don't need to actually win. They just have to be strong enough (or have enough nukes, which both these alliances possess) to make victory too costly for the aggressor. If you're Russia or China, you also have to contend with the possibility that your opponents might actually win. Which would be disastrous for you. Also this is assuming those countries' current military strength. However, if the US military was weaker, they would probably strengthen significantly. Barring India, they're all rich, technologically advanced, economically developed countries capable of projecting a lot of military power.
  - kofejnik 5y ago
    France will surrender a week in, Germany will go pragmatic and negotiate another pipeline after their chancellor becomes a VP at gazprom, and Britain will appease, as Putin is reasonable and only wants small parts of Wales and Poland
    - sofixa 5y ago
      You can't be serious. You know France has nuclear weapons (including a 24/7 nuclear ballistic missile submarine patrol) and a world class military, right? Just because you lack an understanding in military affairs and history, and have heard of a huge military disaster ( of course ignoring all the military successes) doesn't give you a right to insultingly dismiss whole countries' military capabilities.
908B64B197 5y ago
- Japan - Finland - Taiwan - South Korea I've got bad news for you. The reason these countries even still exist today is the US defense budget. Out of the rest you named, France is the only one capable of projecting force on a world-wide scale. There's a reason previous administrations tried to get other NATO countries to increase their spending: it's not cheap to keep footing the bill for everyone else!
- sofixa 5y ago
  I see about South Korea and to an extent Taiwan ( one might argue Taiwan is not a country), but care to elaborate on Japan and Finland? Either if you assume that without the US the Soviets would have conquered both after WW2, the Soviet Union no longer exists, and all constituent countries are now independent.
  - GauntletWizard 5y ago
    Anyone arguing that Taiwan is not a country is not arguing in good faith, unless they're making the joke that the Republic of China still has sovereignty and will one day suppress that nasty uprising.
    - sofixa 5y ago
      Precisely, it's complicated. Nobody recognises Taiwan as an independent country and they don't really claim to be one; some small countries recognise the Republic of China as the China, but the vast majority including the UN, count the PRC as the China, and nominally the island of Taiwan is a part of China. Of course, for most intents and purposes Taiwan is an independent country, but them declaring it as such or anyone recognising it would piss off the PRC, who still view it as a part of a unified China. The civil war ended 70 years ago, they should let it go, but that's easier said than done.
Gortal278 5y ago
> All countries which do not spend anything like what we do on defense, are not under Chinese or russian domination, AND nearly all have longer life expectancy than we do while at the same time spending much much much less on a per capita basis on health care than the US does. They are under US domination, though we call it Hegemony. The 2% of national budget spent of the defense of these countries is not holding the geopolitical balance of power in check. Infact these counties would need to pay much more without the US.

jevoten 5y ago

$768B is a parasitic drain on your economy that is accelerating the rate at which China is overtaking the US. The Soviet Union collapsed in great part because they could not keep up economically. The same is happening to the US now. Besides, that $768B is spent on military operations for all sorts of purposes, not just "freedom". Fat defense contractor margins are another big chunk.