5 ms·

Yes, a selfish take from some IT guy making significantly more $$ than the average Brit or EU citizen. It's nice to be insulated from the rising COL bc you can

Yes, a selfish take from some IT guy making significantly more $$ than the average Brit or EU citizen. It's nice to be insulated from the rising COL bc you can lecture others from the safety of your home.

pb7 3y ago
We pay good money for that home to be safe, something Europeans constantly chide us for. Maybe Europe shouldn't have been relying on cheap resources.
- Animatronio 3y ago
  Well, since EU is most definitely NOT safe from Russia I'd say you either don't pay enough or the money's squandered on something else.
  - pb7 3y ago
    EU's safety is the EU's problem. It has long been underinvesting in security hoping that the US would be its bodyguard. Time to see how little money you have left over for social safety nets when you're not buying cheap resources from the same enemy you need protection from.
    - Animatronio 3y ago
      If EU's safety is its problem then why are we not allowed to take an independent stance in any matter? As to the cheap resources, I'm sorry we didn't invade Iraq, Libia, Syria to get oil for pennies. The EU bought at market price from Russia, what's your point? Was US oil cheaper and we said no?
      - pb7 3y ago
        >If EU's safety is its problem then why are we not allowed to take an independent stance in any matter? The EU pushed for sanctions just as much as the US did, you just don't like the outcome. >As to the cheap resources, I'm sorry we didn't invade Iraq, Libia, Syria to get oil for pennies. Well, first, you need a military to be able to do that. Second, we don't get oil for pennies anymore but we're not under existential crisis as to the future of cost of living. >The EU bought at market price from Russia, what's your point? You built a dependence on a country you're now scared of and that manages to get by without your money and that was a strategic mistake. The US has and is making a similar mistake with China. If the China situation pops off, it'll be the same thing here (and Europe is going to feel the pain of that because it's reliant on China for cheap tchotchkes too).
        Animatronio 3y ago
        The US has plenty of useful idiots in positions of power in the EU, yes. They knew precisely what sanctions meant for the populace but went ahead anyway. As to the military I'd like to refer you to this: https://www.politico.eu/article/europe-nato-problem-defense-procurement-training-research/ https://www.politico.eu/article/europe-nato-problem-defense-... A couple of quotes: "Opposition comes not only from the U.S., which despite Trump’s browbeating of allies to spend more, is intent on preserving a 70-year-old framework that lets Washington call the shots and put its interests first." "Under the guise of avoiding “duplication” and demanding “complementary” capabilities, the U.S. and NATO’s political leaders continue to put up strong resistance to the EU ever developing the command-and-control capabilities that would allow it to operate outside of the alliance’s existing umbrella." At least on the China situation we seem to agree...
- yamtaddle 3y ago
  We? As in the US? The oceans keep us safe. The money we spend is to maintain hegemony.
  - pb7 3y ago
    Are you sure its just the oceans and not the massive navy we have in them?
    - mrguyorama 3y ago
      Aircraft carriers are basically by definition not defensive.
      - pb7 3y ago
        A navy is an effective mobile border when you don't have a Hawaii everywhere. It's easier to defend your castle when your first wall is 2000 miles from your natural border. Plus the best defense is a good offense. Nukes aren't a defensive weapon and yet they're an effective deterrent.
    - yamtaddle 3y ago
      Yes. Invasion is basically logistically impossible without the assistance of Canada or Mexico, and with their assistance, would require a large, obvious, and vulnerable preparation lasting at least many months. Of course our having a navy is a good idea. I'm obviously (and I think you know this) not advocating complete disarmament. We probably don't need a navy large enough to project force to the literal other side of the world in multiple places at the same time, though. Nor a standing army large enough to invade and occupy 2+ weaker countries at the same time. The vast majority of our military spending is about hegemony maintenance and the ability to impose our will around the world, not defending ourselves. Our oceans do in fact put us on easy mode, for simply defending ourselves—we don't need the world's strongest military to do it.

pb7 3y ago

We pay good money for that home to be safe, something Europeans constantly chide us for. Maybe Europe shouldn't have been relying on cheap resources.

Animatronio 3y ago
Well, since EU is most definitely NOT safe from Russia I'd say you either don't pay enough or the money's squandered on something else.
- pb7 3y ago
  EU's safety is the EU's problem. It has long been underinvesting in security hoping that the US would be its bodyguard. Time to see how little money you have left over for social safety nets when you're not buying cheap resources from the same enemy you need protection from.
  - Animatronio 3y ago
    If EU's safety is its problem then why are we not allowed to take an independent stance in any matter? As to the cheap resources, I'm sorry we didn't invade Iraq, Libia, Syria to get oil for pennies. The EU bought at market price from Russia, what's your point? Was US oil cheaper and we said no?
    - pb7 3y ago
      >If EU's safety is its problem then why are we not allowed to take an independent stance in any matter? The EU pushed for sanctions just as much as the US did, you just don't like the outcome. >As to the cheap resources, I'm sorry we didn't invade Iraq, Libia, Syria to get oil for pennies. Well, first, you need a military to be able to do that. Second, we don't get oil for pennies anymore but we're not under existential crisis as to the future of cost of living. >The EU bought at market price from Russia, what's your point? You built a dependence on a country you're now scared of and that manages to get by without your money and that was a strategic mistake. The US has and is making a similar mistake with China. If the China situation pops off, it'll be the same thing here (and Europe is going to feel the pain of that because it's reliant on China for cheap tchotchkes too).
      - Animatronio 3y ago
        The US has plenty of useful idiots in positions of power in the EU, yes. They knew precisely what sanctions meant for the populace but went ahead anyway. As to the military I'd like to refer you to this: https://www.politico.eu/article/europe-nato-problem-defense-procurement-training-research/ https://www.politico.eu/article/europe-nato-problem-defense-... A couple of quotes: "Opposition comes not only from the U.S., which despite Trump’s browbeating of allies to spend more, is intent on preserving a 70-year-old framework that lets Washington call the shots and put its interests first." "Under the guise of avoiding “duplication” and demanding “complementary” capabilities, the U.S. and NATO’s political leaders continue to put up strong resistance to the EU ever developing the command-and-control capabilities that would allow it to operate outside of the alliance’s existing umbrella." At least on the China situation we seem to agree...
yamtaddle 3y ago
We? As in the US? The oceans keep us safe. The money we spend is to maintain hegemony.
- pb7 3y ago
  Are you sure its just the oceans and not the massive navy we have in them?
  - mrguyorama 3y ago
    Aircraft carriers are basically by definition not defensive.
    - pb7 3y ago
      A navy is an effective mobile border when you don't have a Hawaii everywhere. It's easier to defend your castle when your first wall is 2000 miles from your natural border. Plus the best defense is a good offense. Nukes aren't a defensive weapon and yet they're an effective deterrent.
  - yamtaddle 3y ago
    Yes. Invasion is basically logistically impossible without the assistance of Canada or Mexico, and with their assistance, would require a large, obvious, and vulnerable preparation lasting at least many months. Of course our having a navy is a good idea. I'm obviously (and I think you know this) not advocating complete disarmament. We probably don't need a navy large enough to project force to the literal other side of the world in multiple places at the same time, though. Nor a standing army large enough to invade and occupy 2+ weaker countries at the same time. The vast majority of our military spending is about hegemony maintenance and the ability to impose our will around the world, not defending ourselves. Our oceans do in fact put us on easy mode, for simply defending ourselves—we don't need the world's strongest military to do it.