There are no European wars - because of th US's overwhelming presence in Europe. Let's not be so simple minded to think that the US is the only country affected by terrorism. There have been dozens of attacks against our NATO allies, and it shameful that you act as though the US is doing nothing about it.
What's shameful is that you think I'm acting as if the U.S. is doing nothing. I never said that. I've said that NATO has done more for the U.S. lately and currently than the U.S. is for NATO. Of course, both sides benefit. Any deal should be mutually beneficial. I only bring that up because you are acting like Europe should be paying the U.S. in money for having our bases there. Those bases serve our needs as well. And our NATO allies are sending troops to fight, die and serve wars of the United States. So the U.S. gets plenty out of the agreement even without the money. I'm not sure why you would deny this or pretend like it wasn't happening unless you were only getting information from lopsided sources.
He knows this but it doesn't matter. It's the top talking point (NATO allies don't pay their dues) when you want to deflect from a discussion about Putins goals in Europe and his interest in American culture/politics. We shouldn't give him the time of day of debating NATO cause it's what he wants to shift the conversation to. Anyone with half a brain knows NATO protects the US more than anyone as we are the biggest target to take down. Although the Baltic States are the most vulnerable given the current predicament. I don't think Putin wants to invade more countries (he'd rather them ask him to come in) but he certainly will as he's proven with Ukraine. Unless you think world war sounds cool, you'd never take an anti NATO stance unless you are falling into a pro Putin/Trump talking point which by the way is falsely represented (like dues at YMCA or something) in their argument.
Again, simpleton, instead of actually doing any research, you do the typical little texxx response of complaining about your "hurt feelings" (yeah, right) and running away from the actual issue, which is that you don't know what you're talking about. Well, so you won't cry and get your boxers in a knot, here you go: From that liberal rag, Defense News: BRUSSELS — Defense spending has increased "significantly" among NATO allies, a meeting of defense ministers from the Western alliance was told Thursday in Brussels. The meeting heard that, across European allies and Canada, there was a 4.3 percent real increase in defense spending, equivalent to about $12 billion. This means that over the last three years, NATO members spent almost $46 billion more on defense. "This is a significant increase, which means that we are moving in the right direction when it comes to burden-sharing and defense spending," NATO Secretary General Jens Stoltenberg said. "We are making major progress. This will be the third consecutive year of accelerating defense investment across European allies and Canada." From that uninformed entity, NATO: Defense expenditures as a percentage of gross domestic product and annual real change (based on 2010 prices) NATO-Europe: 2015: defense spending increased 0.79% First half of 2016: defense spending increased 7.44% NATO-North America: 2015: defense spending decreased 2.87% First half of 2016: defense spending increased 2.52% NATO Total: 2015: defense spending decreased 1.82% First half of 2016: defense spending increased 2.65% Note: The decrease in total defense spending in 2015 was driven by declines in Canada and the US, not Europe, which had a net increase. The decrease in 2015 was larger in the US than it was in Canada. These figures are through the first half of 2016, the latest NATO data I found with a quick search, which was during the Obama administration, but with a Republican Congress. That Republican Congress didn't pass defense spending increases at the level requested by the US Defense Department and the Obama administration. The recent increases are not driven by the recent change of government in the US, as it goes through the first half of 2016, but rather from fear of Russian aggression after their invasion and annexation of Crimea, and the Russian attempt to destabilize Ukraine, particularly in the eastern part of that nation. You know, the aggression by Mr. trump's good friend, Vladimir Putin. I hope that is helpful. Next time, please attempt to do your own research. Being lazy with facts and being lazy yourself isn't something to crow about. While far from complete, I got this information in a few minutes.
I know that most of you are too busy trying to make everything about Donald Trump to step out of your frenzy to start a war, but for those of you that don't suffer from this cognitive dissonance, here's something new on the subject that addresses the "Russia-did-it" narratives point by point with references. I share it because if I were to write such a thing as a post it would take me a week of work. For those of you that want to show how how much they hate Trump by starting a war, or for non-Americans that don't understand why so many of the people who supposedly identify as left-wingers are pro-war defenders of American Exceptionalism and allies of the most hawkish and duplicitous neo-cons in America, they can read this instead.
Being data illiterate is no way to go through life. An "increase" in spending still does not mean a NATO country is spending 2% of GDP on defense. It just means there was an increase. A "decrease" in spending does not mean a NATO country is not spending 2% of their GDP on defense. It just means there was a decrease. Study hard enough and one of these days you may yet figure out what all of that means.
What are you talking about? Who the hell wants a war with Russia? If right wingers in this country were to simply be able to identify propaganda and engage everyone in actual discussion that would be the best tool in avoiding war of any kind. Trumps campaign to openly divide us (read the news report from the other day.... he was bragging about the "success of the NFL campaign) to proceed with an agenda to hold onto power by dividing us wouldn't actually work and he'd have to govern like a normal freaking president with policies that are good for everyone. And if you aren't concerned with cyber crimes to influence our elections you are an idiot. A great deal of European countries with an agenda for globalism need Trump gone ASAP and you'd be a fool if you thought other countries aren't studying what Russia did to see what they can do on the other end. If I was running in 2020 against Trump, was as brazen as Trump and you guys are about the ethics of collusion to "win", the first thing I'd do is take a pro-China approach and court them to help hack and propagate on my behalf. China already goes to town on us on the business side, you'd be an idiot if you didn't think they paid attention to what Russia is doing here in the US with our politics.
The same neo-cons in our government, both elected and unelected that pushed us into two costly wars in the Middle East and believe in US hegemony at all costs. Did you read either of the pieces I linked to? First, as I've said before, this isn't about Trump. The neo-con hard-on for war has been a staple since before September 11th, and pushing conflict with Russia was a thing long before Trump was a candidate. As for Trump's attempt to divide the electorate (again, not related) is because he's playing the whole "play the culture war games and let them bite" trick that Republican have used since the 60s. Trump has managed to force an artificial binary choice on people: You either hate America, or you don't. Those that don't see it that way aren't voting for him anyway, so he wins. It distracts people from more important things, like the Dakota Access Pipeline, or tax cuts for the wealthy, or Scott Pruit stripping the EPA of scientists (or spending 25 big on a soundproof phonebooth) or Betsy DeVos picking an ex-head of a pro-profit college as the Education Dept's head of fraud investigation, or there's Price's resignation from using chartered planes, which I don't think is as big a deal as getting rid of teen pregnancy prevention programs. But no one is talking about policy. They are talking about the ****ing flag and the NFL and Russia because...that's what people think is what matters, and when you double down on Culture War bullshit, Democrats always lose. When your ideas can be re-framed as being against the flag, apple pie, motherhood, or whatever sentimental thing Trump probably could care less about, you empower his base. At this rate, I expect him to be re-elected with a far greater margin than he was in 2016. Our politics are looking an awful lot like Israel's -- this is exactly how an extremely unpopular blowhard has remained in power so long there. I'm not the one making the claim. I am an IT manager for the state and I'm quite familiar with IT security. The other jobs I've had in my life have been a journalist in Israel and being a CD for a digital agency that did ad buys on Facebook. So I'm quite familiar with running political ads on Facebook. I've written and did the media buys for my agency to support candidates and PACs (in the case of the US) in the US, Mexico, and Israel. Some were funded by the parties or candidates in question, and many weren't -- but all were perfectly legal. And I did it for an Israeli company, in Israel. Did I "hack" elections in Mexico or the US? Um...no I didn't. And other than $150k in perfectly legal media buys that were allegedly made from Russia (which is a fraction of what I've spent in a day) to make sophomoric FB ads, I have yet to see any credible evidence of anyone in Russia committing "cyber crimes to influence our elections" and I've posted plenty of credible sources, in some cases, primary sources that cast more than a reasonable doubt on the allegations made so far. The "Russia is hacking our election" business started around the summer of 2016, and so far, no smoking gun has yet to be produced. If you mean that NATO members in the Baltics and Eastern Europe depend on guarantees of support from their allies, they have a treaty that already guarantees that. It doesn't matter what president is in office. The US can't absolve its commitment to NATO, unless it plans to pull out of it completely, which isn't going to happen. If you mean anything else, I think you grossly overestimate America's interest in European affairs. As for "studying what Russia" did I'm guessing you mean the influence on elections -- there was a report about it happening in France, and like the allegations here, it was quickly debunked. Last June. If you were running against Trump in 2020, you would lose. I'm not sure who "you guys" is but I've said before that I'm not a Republican and voted for Clinton, and I suspect that I'm probably far more left-leaning on social issues, and far more critical of late stage capitalism than you are. I would be careful with jumping to tribalist presumptions about my political identity. I am interested in objective truth and will be the first to admit when I'm wrong. As for China: China actually is doing far more invasive things to IT security in the US, both private and public, have repeatedly been caught, but strangely, the Neo-cons that you blindly support don't get too upset with them because they haven't been beating the drums for a war with them. Russia is a struggling country with a dependency on energy exports, a military with expenditure comparable (and according to some reports, less than) Saudi Arabia and a GDP that has fallen to 11th, between South Korea and Canada, and way below great powers like India and Brazil. It's not even close to the threat to the world that it once was and nowhere close to a threat to either global hegemony or world security. If anyone wants to beat Trump in a general election, they should steer clear of either identity politics or Russia -- and maybe try the 100s of other things that the rest of the world cares about that actually impacts the world.
Yeah, for me it's much bigger than Trump, and I don't want to "start a war," (wherever that came from). The Russians appear to have beaten most other nations to the punch on how to exploit "social media." We were late to the party on weaponizing planes. And we are very late to the party on defending ourselves against weaponized social media. Russia will **** with any and every government's elections if it sees a bit of advantage from sowing chaos. So that's in Europe and the U.S. in particular, but who knows who else.
And they are successful at it. They flipped nearly all the former Soviet republics from being anti Russia to pro Russian governments in the last few years. Lithuania and Georgia are back to being satellite nations of Russia. They have brexit, Trump, Italy, and almost got rid of Merkle who is now the leader of the free world. People need to wake up but because we have Trump Russia is taking advantage. Trump isn't Russia's puppet but he is their opportunity.
Really well said. I've never seen him as a puppet. (Though he may be financially compromised wrt them somehow.) But he is an enormous opportunity for any power or group on the planet that does not like America.
That's what these alt right folks don't understand. This isn't about being anti Republican it's about being anti gross-incompetence
The left lend toward anti-war so it's a silly claim that anti-Russian (or any external) interference (which some on the right refuses to accept has happen) means starting a war. Straw man. There are also some who underestimate social media impact. Direct and instant communication to millions at a cost of a fraction is a golden shot for influence. Seen some of those viral video? How fast did those spread? How much did it cost? $ isn't a factor. It's the quality of the production - or the lies and propaganda, especially if they can tune it well to people who want to believe. Great weapon when tuned right to match human negative emotion. Good thing is now it's in the open, we know what's going on, to an extend and we will know more and can be better prepare. It's too bad that POTUS refuses to acknowledge it (because he simply can't stand thinking he won with Russian help), and that he will unfortunately slow down US progression toward a better defense. But, even with that, there will be some progress, certainly in the rest of the world and even here among many US agencies.
Are you expecting that new group to promote starting an actual war with Russia? I didn't read it that way. Is it possible that an actual war is the fall out, yes, that's possible, but the goal stated is below. Comprehensive strategies... The Alliance for Securing Democracy, a bipartisan, transatlantic initiative housed at The German Marshall Fund of the United States (GMF), will develop comprehensive strategies to defend against, deter, and raise the costs on Russian and other state actors’ efforts to undermine democracy and democratic institutions. The Alliance will work to publicly document and expose Vladimir Putin’s ongoing efforts to subvert democracy in the United States and Europe.
Bill Kristol, Mike Chertoff, Mike Rogers, Jamie Fly -- these are the people that have been trying to lobby for an attack on Iran the last 8 years. The ones that are unrepentant about the Iraq War or the torture programs. You want these guys to influence US/Russian relations too? Are you basso? Do you subscribe to the Weekly Standard?
