4 ms·

I am tired of being taxed and having the money go to forever wars in other countries. Slaughtering Palestinians in Gaza, destabilizing Russia, and on and on.

I am tired of being taxed and having the money go to forever wars in other countries. Slaughtering Palestinians in Gaza, destabilizing Russia, and on and on. At least Trump is winding it down in one place. If Europeans think a hardline against Russia is important, then they can pay for it. We're on the other side of the ocean. This is why the Democrats lost. All they care about is war in the Ukraine. Bernie Sanders supports the war too, but at least he says a few scraps from the table should go to US workers. But he is thrown aside. The Democrats were for the Ukraine war, Jill Stein and Trump were not, and Americans voted for this. Americans voted for this, Trump is implementing it, and all the warmongers and war profiteers and neocons have left is some neocon press and downvotes here for the majority American opinion which screwy old Trump is implementing.

declan_roberts 2y ago
This was a democrat/liberal position until 2016, and now it is exceedingly right-coded.
otherme123 2y ago
A lot of that is inherited from Germany not going fully armed again after II WW, and some capable countries not making nukes (Spain and Italy halted their advanced nuclear programs when the US pressured for it, offering them NATO coverage). How could the USA ask now European countries to not develop nukes? It's in the interest of the USA to cooperate and be part of defensive alliances. When USA goes to their wars and they ask for help, Europeans, Canadians and Australians oblige. If USA goes full isolationist, the rest of the world must develop their own nukes and their own forces. Goodbye to the dollar hegemony and the industrial military complex. USA fought hard with the USSR to achieve hegemony, and now that they got it they throw it away? If that's what US wants, it's OK, but I believe some people don't fully understand the reality or the consequences. The US citizen don't pay taxes for Europe protection; Europe citizens pay taxes to buy american weapons.
- regularization 2y ago
  > It's in the interest of the USA to cooperate and be part of defensive alliances. Bulgaria, Estonia, Finland, Latvia, Lithuania, Poland and Romania are in NATO. "Defensive alliance" means the US bankrolls and guarantees their security, there is no two way street with them, they can do nothing for us. Finland is the most ridiculous case as Stalin could have easily swallowed it up in 1945 if it was in Russia's interest to do so, with little a peep from the West. Them joining NATO in 2023 is an absurdity. A military alliance which should have never existed in the first place - which both Taft and former VP Henry Wallace said in the 1940s. > Goodbye to the dollar hegemony and the industrial military complex. Goodbye military industrial complex? Hallelujah! > USA fought hard with the USSR to achieve hegemony It's more absurd thinking. In 1917 Russia's economy was about Brazil's size. It was like an NFL team playing against a high school team for over a century. Russia barely even had influence over the communists in China.
  - Etheryte 2y ago
    The US is the only country to ever invoke NATO article 5. When the US did, militaries from all countries you listed came and fought the war in a far away land for roughly nothing at all. I can see where you're coming from with all your points, but I think they're very shortsighted. The money the US pours into NATO is minuscule compared to the income it receives from the petrodollar system. Already today we're seeing the nuclear weapons program discussion restart in many countries in Europe. The end result is a US that spends less on other countries, yes, but also a US that receives an order of magnitude less income from those countries than it previously did. All things considered, it will be a US with both less income and less influence.
  - otherme123 2y ago
    Your view of "biggest is winner" is totally wrong. There is nothing wrong in supporting those small countries, they won't require you to move all your army to defend them. In fact, just by being allies keeps the peace, at a very low cost for both parts. You have a very small frame. If you let Russia, for example, take all those small countries for free, suddenly you have a bigger enemy. Not saying that they would defeat the US, but they can make worse problems. Because those little countries you despise are historically peaceful, but Russia not so much. Because Russia leaders are unreliable, for example: https://www.newsweek.com/what-putin-has-said-about-russia-taking-back-alaska-1723021 https://www.newsweek.com/what-putin-has-said-about-russia-ta.... By keeping Russia at bay, the USA keeps the hegemony more easily and for less money. Please, stop thinking that USA is "bankrolling" no one. USA spending on defense of those countries is basically zero. It's just a few military bases with a few dozens of people (20 in Bulgaria, 20 in Estonia, 20 in Finland, 20 in Latvia, 20 in Lithuania, 200 in Poland and 130 in Romania, the countries you named), and have nukes at home that they were going to have anyway. By contrast, those countries deployed to Afghanistan in Operation Enduring Freedom, answering the USA call: Bulgaria 600, Estonia 250, Lithuania 270, Poland 2500 and Romania 1800. It was a bargain for the USA. > Goodbye military industrial complex? Hallelujah! I never said it was a bad thing per se. I only say that being an unreliable supplier of military goods makes you an undesirable business partner. A large share of the GDP of the US depends on military exports, so a large part of the population would have to find another job. Again: this is not bad per se. But, are you sure you (the USA) want this? How many Trump supporters and isolationists don't even suspect how much of the GDP is based on military exports? Another unintended consequence might be China becoming a more reliable military supplier than the US, thus empowering their military industry. Are the USA interested in that happening? Another consequence might be Europe becoming a significant player in the military industry, effectively moving jobs and GDP from USA to Europe. > It's more absurd thinking It was not about GDP, stop thinking in pure economical terms if you want to talk geopolitics. It was about influence. China has always been a wild card. But the USSR had a lot of influence over half Europe, half Hispan-America and half Africa. It's not about economy: put and support a dictatorship in a country like Cuba or North Korea, and it doesn't matter how uber poor they are. You now have two pains in the ass, one of them with nukes and ICBMs, the other was once very close to be a nuke base pointing to the USA. For years, for decades, it was the USA who pressed the NATO expansion. It's imperialistic people like Putin the one who despises it. Again, you can be isolationist like Switzerland is in many senses, but then don't complain when others don't buy your shit, or develop nukes, or make friends with your enemies, or make alliances among themselves (like https://www.france24.com/en/europe/20250226-trump-says-eu-formed-to-screw-united-states-tariffs https://www.france24.com/en/europe/20250226-trump-says-eu-fo...).
deleted 2y ago
[deleted]
iw2rmb 2y ago
First, reps where for Ukraine and now you are flipping like a vane. Second, $100b in weapon aid for Ukraine is just small change and old stuff mostly; and Ukraine could be one of the solid buyers for decades. Third, if you're not a filthy rich you are paying and will pay a lot more for the upcoming years. This could be a real win for US, Ukraine and even probably could overthrow Putin. But with that course of actions the only option for you is to keep stacking eggs.
tim333 2y ago
This particular story is interesting because it's not just about Trump stopping tax payer money, it's about deactivating US made weapons the Europeans have paid for.

declan_roberts 2y ago

This was a democrat/liberal position until 2016, and now it is exceedingly right-coded.

otherme123 2y ago

A lot of that is inherited from Germany not going fully armed again after II WW, and some capable countries not making nukes (Spain and Italy halted their advanced nuclear programs when the US pressured for it, offering them NATO coverage). How could the USA ask now European countries to not develop nukes? It's in the interest of the USA to cooperate and be part of defensive alliances. When USA goes to their wars and they ask for help, Europeans, Canadians and Australians oblige. If USA goes full isolationist, the rest of the world must develop their own nukes and their own forces. Goodbye to the dollar hegemony and the industrial military complex. USA fought hard with the USSR to achieve hegemony, and now that they got it they throw it away? If that's what US wants, it's OK, but I believe some people don't fully understand the reality or the consequences. The US citizen don't pay taxes for Europe protection; Europe citizens pay taxes to buy american weapons.

regularization 2y ago
> It's in the interest of the USA to cooperate and be part of defensive alliances. Bulgaria, Estonia, Finland, Latvia, Lithuania, Poland and Romania are in NATO. "Defensive alliance" means the US bankrolls and guarantees their security, there is no two way street with them, they can do nothing for us. Finland is the most ridiculous case as Stalin could have easily swallowed it up in 1945 if it was in Russia's interest to do so, with little a peep from the West. Them joining NATO in 2023 is an absurdity. A military alliance which should have never existed in the first place - which both Taft and former VP Henry Wallace said in the 1940s. > Goodbye to the dollar hegemony and the industrial military complex. Goodbye military industrial complex? Hallelujah! > USA fought hard with the USSR to achieve hegemony It's more absurd thinking. In 1917 Russia's economy was about Brazil's size. It was like an NFL team playing against a high school team for over a century. Russia barely even had influence over the communists in China.
- Etheryte 2y ago
  The US is the only country to ever invoke NATO article 5. When the US did, militaries from all countries you listed came and fought the war in a far away land for roughly nothing at all. I can see where you're coming from with all your points, but I think they're very shortsighted. The money the US pours into NATO is minuscule compared to the income it receives from the petrodollar system. Already today we're seeing the nuclear weapons program discussion restart in many countries in Europe. The end result is a US that spends less on other countries, yes, but also a US that receives an order of magnitude less income from those countries than it previously did. All things considered, it will be a US with both less income and less influence.
- otherme123 2y ago
  Your view of "biggest is winner" is totally wrong. There is nothing wrong in supporting those small countries, they won't require you to move all your army to defend them. In fact, just by being allies keeps the peace, at a very low cost for both parts. You have a very small frame. If you let Russia, for example, take all those small countries for free, suddenly you have a bigger enemy. Not saying that they would defeat the US, but they can make worse problems. Because those little countries you despise are historically peaceful, but Russia not so much. Because Russia leaders are unreliable, for example: https://www.newsweek.com/what-putin-has-said-about-russia-taking-back-alaska-1723021 https://www.newsweek.com/what-putin-has-said-about-russia-ta.... By keeping Russia at bay, the USA keeps the hegemony more easily and for less money. Please, stop thinking that USA is "bankrolling" no one. USA spending on defense of those countries is basically zero. It's just a few military bases with a few dozens of people (20 in Bulgaria, 20 in Estonia, 20 in Finland, 20 in Latvia, 20 in Lithuania, 200 in Poland and 130 in Romania, the countries you named), and have nukes at home that they were going to have anyway. By contrast, those countries deployed to Afghanistan in Operation Enduring Freedom, answering the USA call: Bulgaria 600, Estonia 250, Lithuania 270, Poland 2500 and Romania 1800. It was a bargain for the USA. > Goodbye military industrial complex? Hallelujah! I never said it was a bad thing per se. I only say that being an unreliable supplier of military goods makes you an undesirable business partner. A large share of the GDP of the US depends on military exports, so a large part of the population would have to find another job. Again: this is not bad per se. But, are you sure you (the USA) want this? How many Trump supporters and isolationists don't even suspect how much of the GDP is based on military exports? Another unintended consequence might be China becoming a more reliable military supplier than the US, thus empowering their military industry. Are the USA interested in that happening? Another consequence might be Europe becoming a significant player in the military industry, effectively moving jobs and GDP from USA to Europe. > It's more absurd thinking It was not about GDP, stop thinking in pure economical terms if you want to talk geopolitics. It was about influence. China has always been a wild card. But the USSR had a lot of influence over half Europe, half Hispan-America and half Africa. It's not about economy: put and support a dictatorship in a country like Cuba or North Korea, and it doesn't matter how uber poor they are. You now have two pains in the ass, one of them with nukes and ICBMs, the other was once very close to be a nuke base pointing to the USA. For years, for decades, it was the USA who pressed the NATO expansion. It's imperialistic people like Putin the one who despises it. Again, you can be isolationist like Switzerland is in many senses, but then don't complain when others don't buy your shit, or develop nukes, or make friends with your enemies, or make alliances among themselves (like https://www.france24.com/en/europe/20250226-trump-says-eu-formed-to-screw-united-states-tariffs https://www.france24.com/en/europe/20250226-trump-says-eu-fo...).

deleted 2y ago

[deleted]

iw2rmb 2y ago

First, reps where for Ukraine and now you are flipping like a vane. Second, $100b in weapon aid for Ukraine is just small change and old stuff mostly; and Ukraine could be one of the solid buyers for decades. Third, if you're not a filthy rich you are paying and will pay a lot more for the upcoming years. This could be a real win for US, Ukraine and even probably could overthrow Putin. But with that course of actions the only option for you is to keep stacking eggs.

tim333 2y ago

This particular story is interesting because it's not just about Trump stopping tax payer money, it's about deactivating US made weapons the Europeans have paid for.