←
The Nexerus
Member
Sui generis
- Last Seen: 4 yrs ago
- Joined: 12 yrs ago
- Posts: 4060 (0.89 / day)
- VMs: 5
-
Username history
- The Nexerus 12 yrs ago
Status
User has no status, yet
Bio
User has no bio, yet
Most Recent Posts
is this it
is this the game
I don't know if I'm in the game
is this the game
I don't know if I'm in the game
why the fuck am I stuck with French Morocco
This is what happens when you tell lurkers to post.
Europe is pretty prosperous. Some might even argue that in many European countries, folks are better off than the average American. Same's true for other countries defended by the U.S., such as Japan and South Korea. Germany and Japan, two of the countries most extensively occupied by the United States, are the third and fourth largest economies in the world. The only countries richer than them in that sense are China and the United States itself. The UK and France are right behind, at fifth and sixth place. Why, then, is the United States under any obligation to defend them? They are clearly financially capable of defending themselves. Is your stipulation that the the U.S. should be occupying every country with a smaller economy than the United States economy? Because that would be literally every country on the planet.
Let Germans defend Germany, Japanese defend Japan and Frenchmen defend France. Even ignoring any questions of imperialism, it just doesn't make sense for American soldiers to be stationed in any of those countries. It's not good for them, since you're never going to be able to learn to fend for yourself is someone's always taking care of you, and it's not good for the United States either, because it's left with the bill. No one benefits.
Let Germans defend Germany, Japanese defend Japan and Frenchmen defend France. Even ignoring any questions of imperialism, it just doesn't make sense for American soldiers to be stationed in any of those countries. It's not good for them, since you're never going to be able to learn to fend for yourself is someone's always taking care of you, and it's not good for the United States either, because it's left with the bill. No one benefits.
Isn't the end goal of paternalism to foster independence?
@Lunamaria The main contention is generally that Europeans should be footing the bill to defend Europe, rather than Americans. When U.S. forces are deployed in bases in Germany, it isn't the citizens of Berlin and Munich that are paying for them, it's the citizens of New York City and Houston.
The NATO recommendation for defence spending is 2% of GDP. The only European member of NATO that spends that much is the United Kingdom. The American taxpayer is left to pay, literally, for Europe's pacifism.
The NATO recommendation for defence spending is 2% of GDP. The only European member of NATO that spends that much is the United Kingdom. The American taxpayer is left to pay, literally, for Europe's pacifism.
Can someone post a link to that application with the map? Roll20 or whatever it's called. Don't know why there isn't already a link posted here.
I remembering reading of trump's books. he said he should pull all the american military forces out of europe and rely on the threat of nuclear missiles in order to control europe. do you really want this guy as president?
He wants the U.S. military to stop occupying other countries? What an idiot. Truly the least intelligent proposal I've ever heard.
As for the question of how it is that she's Jewish without either of her parents being Jewish, she married a Jewish man and converted.
<Snipped quote by Taaj>
Were they Scottish.
That's racist.
© 2007-2026