3 ms·
> 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 th
by 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.