politics
Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!
Rules:
- Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.
Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.
Example:
- Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
- Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
- No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive. Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.
- Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
- No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning
We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.
All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.
That's all the rules!
Civic Links
• Congressional Awards Program
• Library of Congress Legislative Resources
• U.S. House of Representatives
Partnered Communities:
• News
view the rest of the comments
From a Euro-Nato layman's point of view, our alliance with the US has become more a liability than anything else. Believing that we can rely on you (like you did on us after 9/11) looks more and more like a trap which diverts our energy and attention away from our own interests.
How is it a liability? Russia is a threat to Euro-NATO nations. It is in your/their best interests to have the US help against Russia even if US Republicans try to prevent it.
Maybe the US is not a liability in itself, but trusting the US can be a liability. It's like a group project when you have a partner that you know won't do any work. You have to do their part too so that the whole group isn't brought down.
If Trump returns to office or the GOP controls the legislature, NATO will have to do all the work to defend against Russia that it might have otherwise expected the US to help with.
Right I get that, but the alternative is no help from the US. Which is less beneficial to Europe/NATO than some help until/if Republicans block additional help.
I think it's more useful to look at military spending over the last three decades. NATO membership entails spending 2% of GDP on their military. The US is one of few countries in NATO that have actually kept up with that. A couple countries have followed suit but many have been lax. Recently that trend has reversed and more countries are ramping up military buildup, in part due to the US's recent flaky foreign policy. A huge amount of military industry is outsourced to the US as well. Lots of weapons are made there and the prospect of losing your primary source of military industry due to political instability isn't appealing.
Basically, folks got lulled into a false sense of security.
That's a narrative I've heard but I honestly can't speak to how valid it is. I find western media's discussion of US military hegemeny suspect.
It's pretty valid. Between the end of the Cold War and now, most European countries have chosen to wind down military spending, sometimes to an excessive degree. In the 2011 Libya Intervention, the US was initially content to sit back and let Europe handle an affair close to Europe - until it emerged that our allies had started to run out of precision munitions after a few weeks of strikes.
A few years ago, you'd be shouted down for saying that. Problem was that it's true, and the Ukraine invasion woke up a lot of European leaders that they need to fund their own militaries to at least a base level. Nobody seems to argue against it anymore except the odd tankie.
I agree that Trump and the Republicans have created a meaningful risk of non-support.
The absolutely huge military spending by the US can make it worthwhile even in light of that risk:
Considering the massive spend in the US for the generally inferior healthcare, starting to wonder if spending is even a good metric for military.
I agree spending is not a great indicator. Price of labor is a major cost associated with creating military hardware. China can spend a lot less on their military and get more due to lower labor costs. Percentage of GDP spent on Military might be a better indication? Military personnel, bases, and aircraft carriers are a better metric. Last I heard the US was far ahead of everyone else on the last two cases though.
It's a decent one; the US has the ability to project force globally in a way that other countries don't right now.
the US can't now though because half congress are spineless lickspittles hoping to get some green piss trickledown from russian and US oligarchs.
In the event of a Russian attack on NATO, the President already has authority to get US troops involved. Having an actual fight like that tends to create a rally-round-the-flag effect which would make it a lot harder for Republicans to start saying 'no'.
This would also escalate to nuclear before Congress could really change their mind, which is an incredible deterrent for Russia.
The two have some links, as well. The full cost of the Vietnam war hit a few decades after the US pulled out. All those veterans started to use their benefits, and a big one is the VA hospital system.
The vets from the first stages of the War on Terror are starting to hit that right about now.
In fact, I believe that to get to the $801B number in the graph above, you have to include vet benefits. Though it'd be a huge chunk of that pie regardless.
One can only hope. Thank you for siding with us anyway
Nothing wrong with maintaining the defensive alliance. NATO is a matter of standardization and training cooperation, and the US is unlikely to be attacked. Just... look to your own forces in case next time there's a crisis we have a dupe in the White House.
Exactly what we have to get ready for
LOL
Worked out okay for you guys in the first two world wars. Not great in a lot of cases but you're also not posting in German. Now, if you are German, I can understand why you may not welcome us again simply out of habit but if/when #3 kicks off, we'll be there and you'll be happy to see us coming.
If WW3 happens no one is going anywhere except an early grave.
That is, if your government is not actually working with Russia to tople every democratic regime that's left standing