4 ms·
“Drastically” Common, everyone cried at all the demons when Trump asked Europe to reach 2% of GDP on military spending in 2018. Had we done it, we’d have DOUBL
by eastbound 2y ago
“Drastically”
Common, everyone cried at all the demons when Trump asked Europe to reach 2% of GDP on military spending in 2018. Had we done it, we’d have DOUBLED our spending.
Russia is at 6.3%, USA at 3.4% (7x Russia’s in absolute spending), Europe at 1.3%.
Culture-wise, it’s unthinkable for Europe to come around and revive the military-industrial complex. We’re basically trying to win this war by crossing our fingers, like the French did in 1936 (the famous Congés Payés were offered in 1936, with beautiful photos of parisians going to the beach, while our German cousins were in factories manufacturing guns. Guess who won the war).
- falcor84 2y agoI know what you meant to say, but it's important for me to just emphasize that it wasn't the Germans who won that war.
- diordiderot 2y agoWell it certainly wasn't the French
- Terr_ 2y ago> everyone cried at all the demons when Trump asked Europe to reach 2% of GDP on military spending in 2018. No, that's not what people had a problem with, and it's barely even what Trump said. Trump claimed (again) that the less-spending-than-recommended nations somehow owed payments to the US, and threatened that the US would violate the treaty if they somehow didn't keep him satisfied! That's the stuff that was new and controversial, and for damn good reasons.
- diordiderot 2y ago> the US would violate the treaty Other parties were already violating the treaty by not spending 2%. It's simple Tit for tat. > Trump claimed (again) that the less-spending-than-recommended nations somehow owed payments to the US The US was shouldering the cost of international security (being a hegemon) You take European stability and welfare for granted, we can't know what the world would look like without pax Americana but I'm certain it would be worse. The 'rules based international community' You couldn't even stop a genocide on the EUs front door. > for damn good reasons Hopefully I've demonstrated otherwise
- piva00 2y ago> Other parties were already violating the treaty by not spending 2%. It's simple Tit for tat. I'd ask you to share an official document outlining this requirement of the treaty. I will be sitting though.
- Teever 2y agoThe 2pc spending thing is not in the treaty.
- dralley 2y agoI'm as frustrated as anyone about Europe not pulling their weight, but it's not in violation of the treaty. The 2% guideline has nothing to do with the treaty itself. It's precisely that, a non-binding guideline.
- Terr_ 2y ago> Other parties were already violating the treaty by not spending 2%. That is not a requirement in the treaty, merely a recommendation. Stop making things up to sanewash Trump.
- rfrey 2y ago>Culture-wise, it’s unthinkable for Europe to come around and revive the military-industrial complex I'm not sure that means what you think it means. Eisenhower wasn't being complementary when he coined that term.
- ahartmetz 2y agoHe also wasn't exactly disparaging it. He said we need it, but we must not let it become too powerful or influential. The truth of that hasn't really changed.
- rfrey 2y ago"In the councils of government, we must guard against the acquisition of unwarranted influence, whether sought or unsought, by the military-industrial complex. The potential for the disastrous rise of misplaced power exists and will persist." He absolutely disparaged it, in fact he considered it a fundamental threat to democracy. "Military industrial complex" isn't about maintaining a large, dominant military. It's about industry becoming so entwined with the military that they start calling the shots, and military decisions begin to be made for the benefit of corporations rather than the nation.