4 ms·
> What's the point of a defense treaty with a partner that has demonstrated itself to be completely untrustworthy? Some NATO member states until recently were
by kcplate 9mo ago
> What's the point of a defense treaty with a partner that has demonstrated itself to be completely untrustworthy?
Some NATO member states until recently were actively avoiding meeting their defense spending commitments as agreed to in the treaty. Would that indicate that they were untrustworthy or unreliable?
> Also, it's spending rather than funding.
Care to explain the difference when it comes to being ready to fight a war?
- maxerickson 9mo agoTo what extent are you pretending to be obtuse?
- kcplate 9mo agoI am just trying to clarify exactly what actions you find untrustworthy among principals involved in a treaty. Regarding spending vs funding as it relates to war, I would seriously like you to try and explain the distinction. I don’t think you can.
- maxerickson 9mo agoYou responded to my question about the guy that shits on the floor with a question about a guy who breathes loud. Why would I bother addressing your questions?
- kcplate 9mo agoYou are calling someone “untrustworthy” who by their actions so far…hasn’t been. Rhetoric is just words. Not abiding by the terms of your treaty, intentionally…is action. So your analogy should probably be rewritten to be more like A guy who says he might shit on the floor vs the guy with skid marks in his drawers”
- maxerickson 9mo agoI mean, it is obviously a statement about the likely consequences of a hypothetical action.