3 ms·

Denmark is a founding member of NATO, deployed troops to Afghanistan when the US was attacked on 9/11 and lost 40+ soldiers. Denmark has spilled blood for the U

by piva00 9mo ago

Denmark is a founding member of NATO, deployed troops to Afghanistan when the US was attacked on 9/11 and lost 40+ soldiers. Denmark has spilled blood for the US. It's an ally as much as it could be, the US's presence in Greenland is entirely because it is in US's interests, and for that, as an ally, Denmark has always allowed the US to deploy as many troops as it wanted. Also as an ally it allowed Americans to do business in Greenland. What else do you want? You aren't even American for the Trump administration, do not understand how you got so entangled in this bizarre worldview.

rayiner 9mo ago
[flagged]
- piva00 9mo ago
  How are you unsure? You don't think the USA benefitted from the world order it set after WW2, with NATO, setting up a global system of economical hegemony and become the wealthiest nation on the history of mankind? What else do you want? More? It's fucking bonkers that's even an argument to be had, it seems it's never enough for the empire. The US's expenditure on its military was never to protect anyone from the Soviets but to impose its own world order against the Soviets, it's been always self-serving and for someone so educated it's a bit ignorant to not understand that. > And what does my background have it do with my point? What Trump thinks of me has nothing to do with my analysis of any particular policy It has to do with you aligning with the agenda, repeating the rhetoric about US's allies as not being worthy even though it built the USA as it exists today in 2026. The same applies to your background, it helped to build the USA as it exists today but given how you look [0] you'll also be considered not worthy when it's convenient by the agenda of the same administration you're aligning with to betray allies. Good luck thinking the USA as it exists can do so without allies, it's a shame that "when education is not liberating, the dream of the oppressed is to become the oppressor". [0] https://www.linkedin.com/in/rayiner-hashem-3481b58/ https://www.linkedin.com/in/rayiner-hashem-3481b58/
  - rayiner 9mo ago
    > setting up a global system of economical hegemony and become the wealthiest nation on the history of mankind? The U.S. was already the richest country in the world before either world war, coming out of a long period of economic isolation. US GDP per capita growth has been about 2% per year continuously since 1830: https://unchartedterritories.tomaspueyo.com/p/us-gdp-per-capita https://unchartedterritories.tomaspueyo.com/p/us-gdp-per-cap.... It wasn’t notably higher after World War II than before World War I. > The same applies to your background, it helped to build the USA as it exists today The U.S. was already the richest country in the world before mass immigration from countries like mine.
    - cycomanic 9mo ago
      Your link actually proves the OP right and you wrong. Look at the graph of the running average of GDP and you see that after a huge spike in the 40s (due to the WW2 effort) GDP growth settles on a new higher average (with significantly less fluctuation).
      - rayiner 9mo ago
        The spike in the 1940s is the war itself and recovery from the Great Depression. Obviously NATO and the reserve currency and whatnot came after that spike. If you look at the second chart, we’re right around the same point as the historical 1.7% growth curve. If you look at the fifth chart, the large european economies also seemed to have grown slightly faster after the war than before it. So I’m not sure how much the U.S. is benefitting from being the hegemon. The real reason the U.S. is so rich is that it was already the richest country in the world in 1900. The U.S. had almost 50% higher GDP per capita than western europe in 1900: https://www.researchgate.net/figure/Population-GDP-and-GDP-per-capita-1900-2030-selected-countries-and-the-world-GDP-per_tbl1_228999174 https://www.researchgate.net/figure/Population-GDP-and-GDP-p.... Today, its still about 50%.
        geoka9 9mo ago
        > If you look at the fifth chart, the large european economies also seemed to have grown slightly faster after the war than before it. So I’m not sure how much the U.S. is benefitting from being the hegemon. Nobody's denying that the US-created world order has been good for its partners but that doesn't mean the benefit was at the US's expense. International trade is not a zero-sum game - the lifting tide and all that.
- Sammi 9mo ago
  There are many more European countries in NATO than just Denmark, and all of these will have their trust in the US shattered if the US betrays such a close NATO ally as Denmark. You're literally betraying all your closest and largest allies.
  - _zagj 9mo ago
    I don't agree with what Trump is doing, but NATO is clearly more of a liability for the US at this point than an asset, distracting us and diverting resources from our primary theater of geostrategic concern (Asia-Pacific), and Europeans are generally arrogant, ungrateful allies, who, if opinion polls are to be believed, had tepid attitudes towards us even when we had a pro-Europe president (Biden) in the White House who provided Ukraine with over a $100 billion in aid, almost of all of which was either arms or cash (as opposed to loans, which the EU preferred). If that aid couldn't buy much goodwill with our allies, then why are they our allies at all, especially considering that they lack both the means and the will to help us should we come into conflict with China?
    - arw0n 9mo ago
      Since everyone here seems to love to argue in (naive) realist terms, here's some food for thought: Outside of values, China and Europe have very few conflicting geopolitical goals. Core interests don't clash outside of Europe's conflict with Russia, and some rather minor disagreements in Africa. A Eurasian block with a weak Russia and a stable but balkanized Middle East would be very beneficial to both China and the EU. Even India could be largely integrated into that. Even if the cost of NATO was higher than its immediate benefit, there is a very real risk of not only losing allies, but making new adversaries.
      - _zagj 9mo ago
        Europe has already been exposed as a paper tiger. It won't divert funding from its social safety nets to re-arm, even in the face of Russian encroachment into their frontier, and it's too dependent on the American consumer market to go tit-for-tat on trade, and Europe's economy has been stagnant for a decade. Them aligning with China would give every impetuous for the US to align with Russia, on which one presidential candidate (Ramaswamy) already actively campaigned and various rightwing pundits, like Tucker Carlson, advocate (I don't). Also "Europe" will not unite against America; the US could easily win over Poland, Hungary, Turkey, and probably the UK (technically not Europe), and maybe more, if it so chose. Europe's hand is weak, and while the citizens may not realize it, the policymakers (judging by their actions) clearly do. Admittedly, I don't know how to sunset NATO smoothly, but it ought to be done.

by piva00 9mo ago

rayiner 9mo ago

[flagged]

piva00 9mo ago
How are you unsure? You don't think the USA benefitted from the world order it set after WW2, with NATO, setting up a global system of economical hegemony and become the wealthiest nation on the history of mankind? What else do you want? More? It's fucking bonkers that's even an argument to be had, it seems it's never enough for the empire. The US's expenditure on its military was never to protect anyone from the Soviets but to impose its own world order against the Soviets, it's been always self-serving and for someone so educated it's a bit ignorant to not understand that. > And what does my background have it do with my point? What Trump thinks of me has nothing to do with my analysis of any particular policy It has to do with you aligning with the agenda, repeating the rhetoric about US's allies as not being worthy even though it built the USA as it exists today in 2026. The same applies to your background, it helped to build the USA as it exists today but given how you look [0] you'll also be considered not worthy when it's convenient by the agenda of the same administration you're aligning with to betray allies. Good luck thinking the USA as it exists can do so without allies, it's a shame that "when education is not liberating, the dream of the oppressed is to become the oppressor". [0] https://www.linkedin.com/in/rayiner-hashem-3481b58/ https://www.linkedin.com/in/rayiner-hashem-3481b58/
- rayiner 9mo ago
  > setting up a global system of economical hegemony and become the wealthiest nation on the history of mankind? The U.S. was already the richest country in the world before either world war, coming out of a long period of economic isolation. US GDP per capita growth has been about 2% per year continuously since 1830: https://unchartedterritories.tomaspueyo.com/p/us-gdp-per-capita https://unchartedterritories.tomaspueyo.com/p/us-gdp-per-cap.... It wasn’t notably higher after World War II than before World War I. > The same applies to your background, it helped to build the USA as it exists today The U.S. was already the richest country in the world before mass immigration from countries like mine.
  - cycomanic 9mo ago
    Your link actually proves the OP right and you wrong. Look at the graph of the running average of GDP and you see that after a huge spike in the 40s (due to the WW2 effort) GDP growth settles on a new higher average (with significantly less fluctuation).
    - rayiner 9mo ago
      The spike in the 1940s is the war itself and recovery from the Great Depression. Obviously NATO and the reserve currency and whatnot came after that spike. If you look at the second chart, we’re right around the same point as the historical 1.7% growth curve. If you look at the fifth chart, the large european economies also seemed to have grown slightly faster after the war than before it. So I’m not sure how much the U.S. is benefitting from being the hegemon. The real reason the U.S. is so rich is that it was already the richest country in the world in 1900. The U.S. had almost 50% higher GDP per capita than western europe in 1900: https://www.researchgate.net/figure/Population-GDP-and-GDP-per-capita-1900-2030-selected-countries-and-the-world-GDP-per_tbl1_228999174 https://www.researchgate.net/figure/Population-GDP-and-GDP-p.... Today, its still about 50%.
      - geoka9 9mo ago
        > If you look at the fifth chart, the large european economies also seemed to have grown slightly faster after the war than before it. So I’m not sure how much the U.S. is benefitting from being the hegemon. Nobody's denying that the US-created world order has been good for its partners but that doesn't mean the benefit was at the US's expense. International trade is not a zero-sum game - the lifting tide and all that.
Sammi 9mo ago
There are many more European countries in NATO than just Denmark, and all of these will have their trust in the US shattered if the US betrays such a close NATO ally as Denmark. You're literally betraying all your closest and largest allies.
- _zagj 9mo ago
  I don't agree with what Trump is doing, but NATO is clearly more of a liability for the US at this point than an asset, distracting us and diverting resources from our primary theater of geostrategic concern (Asia-Pacific), and Europeans are generally arrogant, ungrateful allies, who, if opinion polls are to be believed, had tepid attitudes towards us even when we had a pro-Europe president (Biden) in the White House who provided Ukraine with over a $100 billion in aid, almost of all of which was either arms or cash (as opposed to loans, which the EU preferred). If that aid couldn't buy much goodwill with our allies, then why are they our allies at all, especially considering that they lack both the means and the will to help us should we come into conflict with China?
  - arw0n 9mo ago
    Since everyone here seems to love to argue in (naive) realist terms, here's some food for thought: Outside of values, China and Europe have very few conflicting geopolitical goals. Core interests don't clash outside of Europe's conflict with Russia, and some rather minor disagreements in Africa. A Eurasian block with a weak Russia and a stable but balkanized Middle East would be very beneficial to both China and the EU. Even India could be largely integrated into that. Even if the cost of NATO was higher than its immediate benefit, there is a very real risk of not only losing allies, but making new adversaries.
    - _zagj 9mo ago
      Europe has already been exposed as a paper tiger. It won't divert funding from its social safety nets to re-arm, even in the face of Russian encroachment into their frontier, and it's too dependent on the American consumer market to go tit-for-tat on trade, and Europe's economy has been stagnant for a decade. Them aligning with China would give every impetuous for the US to align with Russia, on which one presidential candidate (Ramaswamy) already actively campaigned and various rightwing pundits, like Tucker Carlson, advocate (I don't). Also "Europe" will not unite against America; the US could easily win over Poland, Hungary, Turkey, and probably the UK (technically not Europe), and maybe more, if it so chose. Europe's hand is weak, and while the citizens may not realize it, the policymakers (judging by their actions) clearly do. Admittedly, I don't know how to sunset NATO smoothly, but it ought to be done.