Total Posts:50|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

We are obliged to defend too many countries

Death23
Posts: 781
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/2/2015 10:19:37 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
We are obliged by collective defense treaties to defend for the following countries from foreign aggression:

Albania, Belgium, Bulgaria, Canada, Croatia, Czech Republic, Denmark, Estonia, France, Germany, Greece, Hungary, Iceland, Italy, Latvia, Lithuania, Luxembourg, Netherlands, Norway, Poland, Portugal, Romania, Slovak Republic, Slovenia, Spain, Turkey, United Kingdom, Australia, New Zealand, Philippines, Thailand, Japan, Korea, Argentina, Bahamas, Bolivia, Brazil, Chile, Colombia, Costa Rica, Cuba, Dominican Republic, Ecuador, El Salvador, Guatemala, Haiti, Honduras, Nicaragua, Panama, Paraguay, Peru, Trinidad & Tobago, Uruguay, Venezuela

What's in it for us to do this? Why should we be the ones who are responsible? I don't get it.
Skepsikyma
Posts: 8,285
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/2/2015 10:30:27 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 8/2/2015 10:19:37 PM, Death23 wrote:
We are obliged by collective defense treaties to defend for the following countries from foreign aggression:

Albania, Belgium, Bulgaria, Canada, Croatia, Czech Republic, Denmark, Estonia, France, Germany, Greece, Hungary, Iceland, Italy, Latvia, Lithuania, Luxembourg, Netherlands, Norway, Poland, Portugal, Romania, Slovak Republic, Slovenia, Spain, Turkey, United Kingdom, Australia, New Zealand, Philippines, Thailand, Japan, Korea, Argentina, Bahamas, Bolivia, Brazil, Chile, Colombia, Costa Rica, Cuba, Dominican Republic, Ecuador, El Salvador, Guatemala, Haiti, Honduras, Nicaragua, Panama, Paraguay, Peru, Trinidad & Tobago, Uruguay, Venezuela

What's in it for us to do this? Why should we be the ones who are responsible? I don't get it.

We project power in those regions, so we have alliances to reflect that. Those countries all know that they depend on us for defense, and so we have enormous leverage over them.
"The Collectivist experiment is thoroughly suited (in appearance at least) to the Capitalist society which it proposes to replace. It works with the existing machinery of Capitalism, talks and thinks in the existing terms of Capitalism, appeals to just those appetites which Capitalism has aroused, and ridicules as fantastic and unheard-of just those things in society the memory of which Capitalism has killed among men wherever the blight of it has spread."
- Hilaire Belloc -
wrichcirw
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/3/2015 1:23:21 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 8/2/2015 10:19:37 PM, Death23 wrote:
We are obliged by collective defense treaties to defend for the following countries from foreign aggression:

Albania, Belgium, Bulgaria, Canada, Croatia, Czech Republic, Denmark, Estonia, France, Germany, Greece, Hungary, Iceland, Italy, Latvia, Lithuania, Luxembourg, Netherlands, Norway, Poland, Portugal, Romania, Slovak Republic, Slovenia, Spain, Turkey, United Kingdom, Australia, New Zealand, Philippines, Thailand, Japan, Korea, Argentina, Bahamas, Bolivia, Brazil, Chile, Colombia, Costa Rica, Cuba, Dominican Republic, Ecuador, El Salvador, Guatemala, Haiti, Honduras, Nicaragua, Panama, Paraguay, Peru, Trinidad & Tobago, Uruguay, Venezuela

What's in it for us to do this? Why should we be the ones who are responsible? I don't get it.

One word: Empire.
At 8/9/2013 9:41:24 AM, wrichcirw wrote:
If you are civil with me, I will be civil to you. If you decide to bring unreasonable animosity to bear in a reasonable discussion, then what would you expect other than to get flustered?
Death23
Posts: 781
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/3/2015 1:39:59 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 8/2/2015 10:30:27 PM, Skepsikyma wrote:
At 8/2/2015 10:19:37 PM, Death23 wrote:
We are obliged by collective defense treaties to defend for the following countries from foreign aggression:

Albania, Belgium, Bulgaria, Canada, Croatia, Czech Republic, Denmark, Estonia, France, Germany, Greece, Hungary, Iceland, Italy, Latvia, Lithuania, Luxembourg, Netherlands, Norway, Poland, Portugal, Romania, Slovak Republic, Slovenia, Spain, Turkey, United Kingdom, Australia, New Zealand, Philippines, Thailand, Japan, Korea, Argentina, Bahamas, Bolivia, Brazil, Chile, Colombia, Costa Rica, Cuba, Dominican Republic, Ecuador, El Salvador, Guatemala, Haiti, Honduras, Nicaragua, Panama, Paraguay, Peru, Trinidad & Tobago, Uruguay, Venezuela

What's in it for us to do this? Why should we be the ones who are responsible? I don't get it.

We project power in those regions, so we have alliances to reflect that. Those countries all know that they depend on us for defense, and so we have enormous leverage over them.

I don't see enough benefits coming from that influence which would justify the risk of assuming the responsibility to defend them.
Skepsikyma
Posts: 8,285
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/3/2015 1:42:33 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 8/3/2015 1:39:59 AM, Death23 wrote:
At 8/2/2015 10:30:27 PM, Skepsikyma wrote:
At 8/2/2015 10:19:37 PM, Death23 wrote:
We are obliged by collective defense treaties to defend for the following countries from foreign aggression:

Albania, Belgium, Bulgaria, Canada, Croatia, Czech Republic, Denmark, Estonia, France, Germany, Greece, Hungary, Iceland, Italy, Latvia, Lithuania, Luxembourg, Netherlands, Norway, Poland, Portugal, Romania, Slovak Republic, Slovenia, Spain, Turkey, United Kingdom, Australia, New Zealand, Philippines, Thailand, Japan, Korea, Argentina, Bahamas, Bolivia, Brazil, Chile, Colombia, Costa Rica, Cuba, Dominican Republic, Ecuador, El Salvador, Guatemala, Haiti, Honduras, Nicaragua, Panama, Paraguay, Peru, Trinidad & Tobago, Uruguay, Venezuela

What's in it for us to do this? Why should we be the ones who are responsible? I don't get it.

We project power in those regions, so we have alliances to reflect that. Those countries all know that they depend on us for defense, and so we have enormous leverage over them.

I don't see enough benefits coming from that influence which would justify the risk of assuming the responsibility to defend them.

There's also the fact that, if we don't assume that responsibility, our enemies will, and will out-leverage us.
"The Collectivist experiment is thoroughly suited (in appearance at least) to the Capitalist society which it proposes to replace. It works with the existing machinery of Capitalism, talks and thinks in the existing terms of Capitalism, appeals to just those appetites which Capitalism has aroused, and ridicules as fantastic and unheard-of just those things in society the memory of which Capitalism has killed among men wherever the blight of it has spread."
- Hilaire Belloc -
Death23
Posts: 781
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/3/2015 1:45:22 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 8/3/2015 1:42:33 AM, Skepsikyma wrote:
At 8/3/2015 1:39:59 AM, Death23 wrote:
At 8/2/2015 10:30:27 PM, Skepsikyma wrote:
At 8/2/2015 10:19:37 PM, Death23 wrote:
We are obliged by collective defense treaties to defend for the following countries from foreign aggression:

Albania, Belgium, Bulgaria, Canada, Croatia, Czech Republic, Denmark, Estonia, France, Germany, Greece, Hungary, Iceland, Italy, Latvia, Lithuania, Luxembourg, Netherlands, Norway, Poland, Portugal, Romania, Slovak Republic, Slovenia, Spain, Turkey, United Kingdom, Australia, New Zealand, Philippines, Thailand, Japan, Korea, Argentina, Bahamas, Bolivia, Brazil, Chile, Colombia, Costa Rica, Cuba, Dominican Republic, Ecuador, El Salvador, Guatemala, Haiti, Honduras, Nicaragua, Panama, Paraguay, Peru, Trinidad & Tobago, Uruguay, Venezuela

What's in it for us to do this? Why should we be the ones who are responsible? I don't get it.

We project power in those regions, so we have alliances to reflect that. Those countries all know that they depend on us for defense, and so we have enormous leverage over them.

I don't see enough benefits coming from that influence which would justify the risk of assuming the responsibility to defend them.

There's also the fact that, if we don't assume that responsibility, our enemies will, and will out-leverage us.

It just seems all hypothetical. Tangible, measurable benefits are better. Switzerland is fairly isolationist, and it's worked out well for them. Why don't we just defend our own territory and let other people worry about defending theirs. We don't need to all these alliances to protect us. We can protect ourselves.
Skepsikyma
Posts: 8,285
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/3/2015 1:50:42 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 8/3/2015 1:45:22 AM, Death23 wrote:
At 8/3/2015 1:42:33 AM, Skepsikyma wrote:
At 8/3/2015 1:39:59 AM, Death23 wrote:
At 8/2/2015 10:30:27 PM, Skepsikyma wrote:
At 8/2/2015 10:19:37 PM, Death23 wrote:
We are obliged by collective defense treaties to defend for the following countries from foreign aggression:

Albania, Belgium, Bulgaria, Canada, Croatia, Czech Republic, Denmark, Estonia, France, Germany, Greece, Hungary, Iceland, Italy, Latvia, Lithuania, Luxembourg, Netherlands, Norway, Poland, Portugal, Romania, Slovak Republic, Slovenia, Spain, Turkey, United Kingdom, Australia, New Zealand, Philippines, Thailand, Japan, Korea, Argentina, Bahamas, Bolivia, Brazil, Chile, Colombia, Costa Rica, Cuba, Dominican Republic, Ecuador, El Salvador, Guatemala, Haiti, Honduras, Nicaragua, Panama, Paraguay, Peru, Trinidad & Tobago, Uruguay, Venezuela

What's in it for us to do this? Why should we be the ones who are responsible? I don't get it.

We project power in those regions, so we have alliances to reflect that. Those countries all know that they depend on us for defense, and so we have enormous leverage over them.

I don't see enough benefits coming from that influence which would justify the risk of assuming the responsibility to defend them.

There's also the fact that, if we don't assume that responsibility, our enemies will, and will out-leverage us.

It just seems all hypothetical. Tangible, measurable benefits are better. Switzerland is fairly isolationist, and it's worked out well for them. Why don't we just defend our own territory and let other people worry about defending theirs. We don't need to all these alliances to protect us. We can protect ourselves.

Machiavelli denoted two types of republics: the expansive, and the restrained. He uses Rome and Venice, respectively, as examples. Switzerland follows the restrained model, while we follow the expansive one, and there's no ability to really roll back the clock at this point.
"The Collectivist experiment is thoroughly suited (in appearance at least) to the Capitalist society which it proposes to replace. It works with the existing machinery of Capitalism, talks and thinks in the existing terms of Capitalism, appeals to just those appetites which Capitalism has aroused, and ridicules as fantastic and unheard-of just those things in society the memory of which Capitalism has killed among men wherever the blight of it has spread."
- Hilaire Belloc -
Death23
Posts: 781
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/3/2015 1:53:37 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 8/3/2015 1:50:42 AM, Skepsikyma wrote:
At 8/3/2015 1:45:22 AM, Death23 wrote:
At 8/3/2015 1:42:33 AM, Skepsikyma wrote:
At 8/3/2015 1:39:59 AM, Death23 wrote:
At 8/2/2015 10:30:27 PM, Skepsikyma wrote:
At 8/2/2015 10:19:37 PM, Death23 wrote:
We are obliged by collective defense treaties to defend for the following countries from foreign aggression:

Albania, Belgium, Bulgaria, Canada, Croatia, Czech Republic, Denmark, Estonia, France, Germany, Greece, Hungary, Iceland, Italy, Latvia, Lithuania, Luxembourg, Netherlands, Norway, Poland, Portugal, Romania, Slovak Republic, Slovenia, Spain, Turkey, United Kingdom, Australia, New Zealand, Philippines, Thailand, Japan, Korea, Argentina, Bahamas, Bolivia, Brazil, Chile, Colombia, Costa Rica, Cuba, Dominican Republic, Ecuador, El Salvador, Guatemala, Haiti, Honduras, Nicaragua, Panama, Paraguay, Peru, Trinidad & Tobago, Uruguay, Venezuela

What's in it for us to do this? Why should we be the ones who are responsible? I don't get it.

We project power in those regions, so we have alliances to reflect that. Those countries all know that they depend on us for defense, and so we have enormous leverage over them.

I don't see enough benefits coming from that influence which would justify the risk of assuming the responsibility to defend them.

There's also the fact that, if we don't assume that responsibility, our enemies will, and will out-leverage us.

It just seems all hypothetical. Tangible, measurable benefits are better. Switzerland is fairly isolationist, and it's worked out well for them. Why don't we just defend our own territory and let other people worry about defending theirs. We don't need to all these alliances to protect us. We can protect ourselves.

Machiavelli denoted two types of republics: the expansive, and the restrained. He uses Rome and Venice, respectively, as examples. Switzerland follows the restrained model, while we follow the expansive one, and there's no ability to really roll back the clock at this point.

Here's a way: Withdraw from the treaties and slash out defense budget.
Skepsikyma
Posts: 8,285
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/3/2015 1:59:03 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 8/3/2015 1:53:37 AM, Death23 wrote:
At 8/3/2015 1:50:42 AM, Skepsikyma wrote:
At 8/3/2015 1:45:22 AM, Death23 wrote:
At 8/3/2015 1:42:33 AM, Skepsikyma wrote:
At 8/3/2015 1:39:59 AM, Death23 wrote:
At 8/2/2015 10:30:27 PM, Skepsikyma wrote:
At 8/2/2015 10:19:37 PM, Death23 wrote:
We are obliged by collective defense treaties to defend for the following countries from foreign aggression:

Albania, Belgium, Bulgaria, Canada, Croatia, Czech Republic, Denmark, Estonia, France, Germany, Greece, Hungary, Iceland, Italy, Latvia, Lithuania, Luxembourg, Netherlands, Norway, Poland, Portugal, Romania, Slovak Republic, Slovenia, Spain, Turkey, United Kingdom, Australia, New Zealand, Philippines, Thailand, Japan, Korea, Argentina, Bahamas, Bolivia, Brazil, Chile, Colombia, Costa Rica, Cuba, Dominican Republic, Ecuador, El Salvador, Guatemala, Haiti, Honduras, Nicaragua, Panama, Paraguay, Peru, Trinidad & Tobago, Uruguay, Venezuela

What's in it for us to do this? Why should we be the ones who are responsible? I don't get it.

We project power in those regions, so we have alliances to reflect that. Those countries all know that they depend on us for defense, and so we have enormous leverage over them.

I don't see enough benefits coming from that influence which would justify the risk of assuming the responsibility to defend them.

There's also the fact that, if we don't assume that responsibility, our enemies will, and will out-leverage us.

It just seems all hypothetical. Tangible, measurable benefits are better. Switzerland is fairly isolationist, and it's worked out well for them. Why don't we just defend our own territory and let other people worry about defending theirs. We don't need to all these alliances to protect us. We can protect ourselves.

Machiavelli denoted two types of republics: the expansive, and the restrained. He uses Rome and Venice, respectively, as examples. Switzerland follows the restrained model, while we follow the expansive one, and there's no ability to really roll back the clock at this point.

Here's a way: Withdraw from the treaties and slash out defense budget.

Our territory is expansive, and requires high defense expenditures. Cutting military expenditures too drastically would just result in the encroachment of other rising powers, and the loss of our ability to project power. With these alliances, we encircle our enemies and make it more difficult for them to gain power.
"The Collectivist experiment is thoroughly suited (in appearance at least) to the Capitalist society which it proposes to replace. It works with the existing machinery of Capitalism, talks and thinks in the existing terms of Capitalism, appeals to just those appetites which Capitalism has aroused, and ridicules as fantastic and unheard-of just those things in society the memory of which Capitalism has killed among men wherever the blight of it has spread."
- Hilaire Belloc -
wrichcirw
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/3/2015 2:01:08 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 8/3/2015 1:53:37 AM, Death23 wrote:
At 8/3/2015 1:50:42 AM, Skepsikyma wrote:
At 8/3/2015 1:45:22 AM, Death23 wrote:
At 8/3/2015 1:42:33 AM, Skepsikyma wrote:
At 8/3/2015 1:39:59 AM, Death23 wrote:
At 8/2/2015 10:30:27 PM, Skepsikyma wrote:
At 8/2/2015 10:19:37 PM, Death23 wrote:
We are obliged by collective defense treaties to defend for the following countries from foreign aggression:

Albania, Belgium, Bulgaria, Canada, Croatia, Czech Republic, Denmark, Estonia, France, Germany, Greece, Hungary, Iceland, Italy, Latvia, Lithuania, Luxembourg, Netherlands, Norway, Poland, Portugal, Romania, Slovak Republic, Slovenia, Spain, Turkey, United Kingdom, Australia, New Zealand, Philippines, Thailand, Japan, Korea, Argentina, Bahamas, Bolivia, Brazil, Chile, Colombia, Costa Rica, Cuba, Dominican Republic, Ecuador, El Salvador, Guatemala, Haiti, Honduras, Nicaragua, Panama, Paraguay, Peru, Trinidad & Tobago, Uruguay, Venezuela

What's in it for us to do this? Why should we be the ones who are responsible? I don't get it.

We project power in those regions, so we have alliances to reflect that. Those countries all know that they depend on us for defense, and so we have enormous leverage over them.

I don't see enough benefits coming from that influence which would justify the risk of assuming the responsibility to defend them.

There's also the fact that, if we don't assume that responsibility, our enemies will, and will out-leverage us.

It just seems all hypothetical. Tangible, measurable benefits are better. Switzerland is fairly isolationist, and it's worked out well for them. Why don't we just defend our own territory and let other people worry about defending theirs. We don't need to all these alliances to protect us. We can protect ourselves.

Machiavelli denoted two types of republics: the expansive, and the restrained. He uses Rome and Venice, respectively, as examples. Switzerland follows the restrained model, while we follow the expansive one, and there's no ability to really roll back the clock at this point.

Here's a way: Withdraw from the treaties and slash out defense budget.

If we withdraw from those treaties, our defense budget will more than likely exponentially increase, as those countries now-deprived of US military protection engage in an arms race to defend themselves, an arms race that we will be forced to match since militaries now have the uncanny ability to project significant power across oceans.

Our presence in those countries creates an environment where those who are occupied demilitarize, which makes militaries throughout the alliance cheaper and more efficient to maintain. This is Pax Americana.
At 8/9/2013 9:41:24 AM, wrichcirw wrote:
If you are civil with me, I will be civil to you. If you decide to bring unreasonable animosity to bear in a reasonable discussion, then what would you expect other than to get flustered?
Varrack
Posts: 2,410
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/3/2015 2:02:39 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 8/3/2015 1:45:22 AM, Death23 wrote:
At 8/3/2015 1:42:33 AM, Skepsikyma wrote:
At 8/3/2015 1:39:59 AM, Death23 wrote:
At 8/2/2015 10:30:27 PM, Skepsikyma wrote:
At 8/2/2015 10:19:37 PM, Death23 wrote:
We are obliged by collective defense treaties to defend for the following countries from foreign aggression:

Albania, Belgium, Bulgaria, Canada, Croatia, Czech Republic, Denmark, Estonia, France, Germany, Greece, Hungary, Iceland, Italy, Latvia, Lithuania, Luxembourg, Netherlands, Norway, Poland, Portugal, Romania, Slovak Republic, Slovenia, Spain, Turkey, United Kingdom, Australia, New Zealand, Philippines, Thailand, Japan, Korea, Argentina, Bahamas, Bolivia, Brazil, Chile, Colombia, Costa Rica, Cuba, Dominican Republic, Ecuador, El Salvador, Guatemala, Haiti, Honduras, Nicaragua, Panama, Paraguay, Peru, Trinidad & Tobago, Uruguay, Venezuela

What's in it for us to do this? Why should we be the ones who are responsible? I don't get it.

We project power in those regions, so we have alliances to reflect that. Those countries all know that they depend on us for defense, and so we have enormous leverage over them.

I don't see enough benefits coming from that influence which would justify the risk of assuming the responsibility to defend them.

There's also the fact that, if we don't assume that responsibility, our enemies will, and will out-leverage us.

It just seems all hypothetical. Tangible, measurable benefits are better. Switzerland is fairly isolationist, and it's worked out well for them. Why don't we just defend our own territory and let other people worry about defending theirs. We don't need to all these alliances to protect us. We can protect ourselves.

Isolationism may seem like an likeable idea, but I highly doubt that is really the correct worldview. Predator nations will arise if we abandon our post, and dictators will come to power if we decide to take a vacation. This has been proven many times in history, in which people like Hitler, Stalin, Zedong, Pol Pot, Ho Chi Minh, will gain power and will commence mass injustices of many sorts. When we were isolationist in the 30s, the Nazis rose and many invasions of other countries happened. It wasn't until we were plunged into war by Japan's aggression the following decade that Congress voted overwhelmingly to go to war.

I'm curious on how you found that list though. Many of those countries aren't allied with us and are even hostile to us (Cuba for example) so I'm wondering where it all came from.
Death23
Posts: 781
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/3/2015 2:20:14 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 8/3/2015 2:02:39 AM, Varrack wrote:
At 8/3/2015 1:45:22 AM, Death23 wrote:
At 8/3/2015 1:42:33 AM, Skepsikyma wrote:
At 8/3/2015 1:39:59 AM, Death23 wrote:
At 8/2/2015 10:30:27 PM, Skepsikyma wrote:
At 8/2/2015 10:19:37 PM, Death23 wrote:
We are obliged by collective defense treaties to defend for the following countries from foreign aggression:

Albania, Belgium, Bulgaria, Canada, Croatia, Czech Republic, Denmark, Estonia, France, Germany, Greece, Hungary, Iceland, Italy, Latvia, Lithuania, Luxembourg, Netherlands, Norway, Poland, Portugal, Romania, Slovak Republic, Slovenia, Spain, Turkey, United Kingdom, Australia, New Zealand, Philippines, Thailand, Japan, Korea, Argentina, Bahamas, Bolivia, Brazil, Chile, Colombia, Costa Rica, Cuba, Dominican Republic, Ecuador, El Salvador, Guatemala, Haiti, Honduras, Nicaragua, Panama, Paraguay, Peru, Trinidad & Tobago, Uruguay, Venezuela

What's in it for us to do this? Why should we be the ones who are responsible? I don't get it.

We project power in those regions, so we have alliances to reflect that. Those countries all know that they depend on us for defense, and so we have enormous leverage over them.

I don't see enough benefits coming from that influence which would justify the risk of assuming the responsibility to defend them.

There's also the fact that, if we don't assume that responsibility, our enemies will, and will out-leverage us.

It just seems all hypothetical. Tangible, measurable benefits are better. Switzerland is fairly isolationist, and it's worked out well for them. Why don't we just defend our own territory and let other people worry about defending theirs. We don't need to all these alliances to protect us. We can protect ourselves.

Isolationism may seem like an likeable idea, but I highly doubt that is really the correct worldview. Predator nations will arise if we abandon our post, and dictators will come to power if we decide to take a vacation. This has been proven many times in history, in which people like Hitler, Stalin, Zedong, Pol Pot, Ho Chi Minh, will gain power and will commence mass injustices of many sorts. When we were isolationist in the 30s, the Nazis rose and many invasions of other countries happened. It wasn't until we were plunged into war by Japan's aggression the following decade that Congress voted overwhelmingly to go to war.

I'm curious on how you found that list though. Many of those countries aren't allied with us and are even hostile to us (Cuba for example) so I'm wondering where it all came from.

It's from the state department's website:

http://www.state.gov...

If they want our protection then they should pay for it. The list has a bunch of free loaders. Costa Rica doesn't even have a military and we're allocating typically 4% of our GDP to defense. The vast majority of NATO members don't even meet the 2% requirement. They have no reason to spend on defense when they can simply rely on us to come to their aid in a time of need. We're not getting enough in return.
Contra
Posts: 3,941
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/3/2015 3:54:02 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 8/3/2015 2:02:39 AM, Varrack wrote:
At 8/3/2015 1:45:22 AM, Death23 wrote:
At 8/3/2015 1:42:33 AM, Skepsikyma wrote:
At 8/3/2015 1:39:59 AM, Death23 wrote:
At 8/2/2015 10:30:27 PM, Skepsikyma wrote:
At 8/2/2015 10:19:37 PM, Death23 wrote:
We are obliged by collective defense treaties to defend for the following countries from foreign aggression:

Albania, Belgium, Bulgaria, Canada, Croatia, Czech Republic, Denmark, Estonia, France, Germany, Greece, Hungary, Iceland, Italy, Latvia, Lithuania, Luxembourg, Netherlands, Norway, Poland, Portugal, Romania, Slovak Republic, Slovenia, Spain, Turkey, United Kingdom, Australia, New Zealand, Philippines, Thailand, Japan, Korea, Argentina, Bahamas, Bolivia, Brazil, Chile, Colombia, Costa Rica, Cuba, Dominican Republic, Ecuador, El Salvador, Guatemala, Haiti, Honduras, Nicaragua, Panama, Paraguay, Peru, Trinidad & Tobago, Uruguay, Venezuela

What's in it for us to do this? Why should we be the ones who are responsible? I don't get it.

We project power in those regions, so we have alliances to reflect that. Those countries all know that they depend on us for defense, and so we have enormous leverage over them.

I don't see enough benefits coming from that influence which would justify the risk of assuming the responsibility to defend them.

There's also the fact that, if we don't assume that responsibility, our enemies will, and will out-leverage us.

It just seems all hypothetical. Tangible, measurable benefits are better. Switzerland is fairly isolationist, and it's worked out well for them. Why don't we just defend our own territory and let other people worry about defending theirs. We don't need to all these alliances to protect us. We can protect ourselves.

Isolationism may seem like an likeable idea, but I highly doubt that is really the correct worldview. Predator nations will arise if we abandon our post, and dictators will come to power if we decide to take a vacation. This has been proven many times in history, in which people like Hitler, Stalin, Zedong, Pol Pot, Ho Chi Minh, will gain power and will commence mass injustices of many sorts. When we were isolationist in the 30s, the Nazis rose and many invasions of other countries happened. It wasn't until we were plunged into war by Japan's aggression the following decade that Congress voted overwhelmingly to go to war.

I'm curious on how you found that list though. Many of those countries aren't allied with us and are even hostile to us (Cuba for example) so I'm wondering where it all came from.

I am also interested in where you found your list.

In the long-run we are not able to afford to provide defense for all of these nations. We need to support our regional partners, and we need to scale back our military spending to invest in America and reduce our debt obligations.

We shouldn't "cut and run". We should let our friends and allies have their own spheres of influence, while the United States plays a less active (military) role. We can fill the military power vacuum with a hybrid of our economic and political influence, as well as the influence of our friends and allies in areas such as Europe and the Middle East. Germany and the U.K. for instance are steady allies, I think we can trust them to make more of their own security decisions. Respect should be a guiding principle.
"The solution [for Republicans] is to admit that Bush was a bad president, stop this racist homophobic stuff, stop trying to give most of the tax cuts to the rich, propose a real alternative to Obamacare that actually works, and propose smart free market solutions to our economic problems." - Distraff

"Americans are better off in a dynamic, free-enterprise-based economy that fosters economic growth, opportunity and upward mobility." - Paul Ryan
The_Running_Mate
Posts: 40
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/3/2015 9:11:05 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 8/2/2015 10:19:37 PM, Death23 wrote:
We are obliged by collective defense treaties to defend for the following countries from foreign aggression:

Albania, Belgium, Bulgaria, Canada, Croatia, Czech Republic, Denmark, Estonia, France, Germany, Greece, Hungary, Iceland, Italy, Latvia, Lithuania, Luxembourg, Netherlands, Norway, Poland, Portugal, Romania, Slovak Republic, Slovenia, Spain, Turkey, United Kingdom, Australia, New Zealand, Philippines, Thailand, Japan, Korea, Argentina, Bahamas, Bolivia, Brazil, Chile, Colombia, Costa Rica, Cuba, Dominican Republic, Ecuador, El Salvador, Guatemala, Haiti, Honduras, Nicaragua, Panama, Paraguay, Peru, Trinidad & Tobago, Uruguay, Venezuela

What's in it for us to do this? Why should we be the ones who are responsible? I don't get it.

But our level of "defense" can vary, depending on the circumstance. We are not obliged, for example, to go to war for all of those countries. There are alternative tactics to defending them. Also, often with allies, which those countries are, it is a two-way street, as they will assist us (the USA) as well in many cases. Recall the coalition that helped us after 9/11.
Lastly, where did you get that list? Source? Some of those countries do not belong on it, such as Cuba, Venezuela, and Columbia. And arguably, Slovak Republic (?) and Turkey as well. In fact, we have seen some terrorist factions in Turkey. They are considered a part of the Middle East.
Skepsikyma
Posts: 8,285
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/4/2015 2:11:45 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 8/3/2015 2:02:39 AM, Varrack wrote:
I'm curious on how you found that list though. Many of those countries aren't allied with us and are even hostile to us (Cuba for example) so I'm wondering where it all came from.

Cuba is technically a member of the OAS (Organization of American States), which are obligated to mutually defend one another via treaty.

https://en.wikipedia.org...
"The Collectivist experiment is thoroughly suited (in appearance at least) to the Capitalist society which it proposes to replace. It works with the existing machinery of Capitalism, talks and thinks in the existing terms of Capitalism, appeals to just those appetites which Capitalism has aroused, and ridicules as fantastic and unheard-of just those things in society the memory of which Capitalism has killed among men wherever the blight of it has spread."
- Hilaire Belloc -
Khaos_Mage
Posts: 23,214
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/4/2015 8:01:40 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 8/2/2015 10:26:50 PM, Mirza wrote:
There must be nothing "in it" for you. You do it for purely altruistic reasons. :)

Why do you suppose they want us to protect them? What's in it for them? Or, is that just their altruism showing?
My work here is, finally, done.
Mirza
Posts: 16,992
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/5/2015 4:58:48 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 8/4/2015 8:01:40 PM, Khaos_Mage wrote:
Why do you suppose they want us to protect them? What's in it for them? Or, is that just their altruism showing?
It's not. But I'm also quite sure that they don't say it is, which can't be said is the same case for many of your countrymen. :)
JMcKinley
Posts: 314
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/5/2015 2:08:22 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 8/3/2015 1:39:59 AM, Death23 wrote:
At 8/2/2015 10:30:27 PM, Skepsikyma wrote:
At 8/2/2015 10:19:37 PM, Death23 wrote:
We are obliged by collective defense treaties to defend for the following countries from foreign aggression:

Albania, Belgium, Bulgaria, Canada, Croatia, Czech Republic, Denmark, Estonia, France, Germany, Greece, Hungary, Iceland, Italy, Latvia, Lithuania, Luxembourg, Netherlands, Norway, Poland, Portugal, Romania, Slovak Republic, Slovenia, Spain, Turkey, United Kingdom, Australia, New Zealand, Philippines, Thailand, Japan, Korea, Argentina, Bahamas, Bolivia, Brazil, Chile, Colombia, Costa Rica, Cuba, Dominican Republic, Ecuador, El Salvador, Guatemala, Haiti, Honduras, Nicaragua, Panama, Paraguay, Peru, Trinidad & Tobago, Uruguay, Venezuela

What's in it for us to do this? Why should we be the ones who are responsible? I don't get it.

We project power in those regions, so we have alliances to reflect that. Those countries all know that they depend on us for defense, and so we have enormous leverage over them.

I don't see enough benefits coming from that influence which would justify the risk of assuming the responsibility to defend them.

The benefit has been one of the longest era's of relative peace in recent history.

Yes America has been at war in Iraq, Afghanistan etc, and yes the world is far from peaceful. However when you compare recent conflicts with the kinds of wars we seen before like WWI and WWII, they pale in comparison.

The world works very hard for peace nowadays compared to how nonchalantly major nations used to declare war on one another. Much of that is largely due to the peacekeeping efforts of the US and its allies around the world.

This peace is beneficial for all of us. If you think war in Iraq was expensive, just wait until you need to go toe to toe with a real powerhouse such as Russia or China. That's a totally different ball game. By projecting its military influence outwards through peace treaties America helps stabilize entire regions and prevents the sorts of conflicts that snowball into major wars.
Khaos_Mage
Posts: 23,214
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/5/2015 2:11:20 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 8/5/2015 4:58:48 AM, Mirza wrote:
At 8/4/2015 8:01:40 PM, Khaos_Mage wrote:
Why do you suppose they want us to protect them? What's in it for them? Or, is that just their altruism showing?
It's not. But I'm also quite sure that they don't say it is, which can't be said is the same case for many of your countrymen. :)

So, what is in it for them? Why do they want us there?
Further, and more to the point, why do you blame us for being there if they want us to be there?
My work here is, finally, done.
Mirza
Posts: 16,992
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/5/2015 4:15:01 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 8/5/2015 2:11:20 PM, Khaos_Mage wrote:
So, what is in it for them? Why do they want us there?
Further, and more to the point, why do you blame us for being there if they want us to be there?
They get protection; you get to project power. The benefits in large are on your side.

Where did I blame you for this?
Khaos_Mage
Posts: 23,214
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/5/2015 4:32:14 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 8/5/2015 4:15:01 PM, Mirza wrote:
At 8/5/2015 2:11:20 PM, Khaos_Mage wrote:
So, what is in it for them? Why do they want us there?
Further, and more to the point, why do you blame us for being there if they want us to be there?
They get protection; you get to project power. The benefits in large are on your side.
Seriously?
Projecting power is good, I suppose, but think of our costs, both in blood and treasure, but also in animosity. Further, think about their benefits? They have protection and get to keep their hands clean, and can focus their tax revenue on other things. Imagine if we used our military spending (about 22% of our budget) internally, for infrastructure, health care, or education.

Where did I blame you for this?
You have said numerous time you don't like our military presence throughout the world.
My work here is, finally, done.
Mirza
Posts: 16,992
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/5/2015 4:38:30 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 8/5/2015 4:32:14 PM, Khaos_Mage wrote:
Projecting power is good, I suppose, but think of our costs, both in blood and treasure, but also in animosity. Further, think about their benefits? They have protection and get to keep their hands clean, and can focus their tax revenue on other things. Imagine if we used our military spending (about 22% of our budget) internally, for infrastructure, health care, or education.
America does what it wants regardless of animosity. It has every means toward making friends with the right nations, such as those in Europe, so what the Arab world thinks or some insignificant country in South America is largely ignored. Concerning the costs, if it were more detrimental than beneficial, do you *seriously* think your country would have continued with this imperialistic quest for decades? Unless you have complete morons as strategists, I very much doubt it. You protect your oil interests, you get countries on your side for economic and political benefits (e.g., Kosovo), etc.

I can imagine you spending that 22% on something else. That would be lovely in the future. Just give a little time for Europe to collect itself, though. :)

You have said numerous time you don't like our military presence throughout the world.
It's when your country acts in a vile manner that I find reasons to be opposed. If you construct a military base in a country that wants it, that's none of my business. It what you use it for that matters.
Khaos_Mage
Posts: 23,214
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/5/2015 4:52:08 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 8/5/2015 4:38:30 PM, Mirza wrote:
At 8/5/2015 4:32:14 PM, Khaos_Mage wrote:
Projecting power is good, I suppose, but think of our costs, both in blood and treasure, but also in animosity. Further, think about their benefits? They have protection and get to keep their hands clean, and can focus their tax revenue on other things. Imagine if we used our military spending (about 22% of our budget) internally, for infrastructure, health care, or education.
America does what it wants regardless of animosity. It has every means toward making friends with the right nations, such as those in Europe, so what the Arab world thinks or some insignificant country in South America is largely ignored. Concerning the costs, if it were more detrimental than beneficial, do you *seriously* think your country would have continued with this imperialistic quest for decades? Unless you have complete morons as strategists, I very much doubt it. You protect your oil interests, you get countries on your side for economic and political benefits (e.g., Kosovo), etc.
Well, we are a bunch of morons, so who knows? You can't have it both ways, can you?

I can imagine you spending that 22% on something else. That would be lovely in the future. Just give a little time for Europe to collect itself, though. :)

You have said numerous time you don't like our military presence throughout the world.
It's when your country acts in a vile manner that I find reasons to be opposed. If you construct a military base in a country that wants it, that's none of my business. It what you use it for that matters.
If our treaties with five countries need us to intervene on their behalf for a "vile" act, who is at fault? Us, them, or both?
My work here is, finally, done.
Mirza
Posts: 16,992
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/5/2015 5:04:09 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 8/5/2015 4:52:08 PM, Khaos_Mage wrote:
Well, we are a bunch of morons, so who knows? You can't have it both ways, can you?
Nah, let's give more credit to some of you. :)

If our treaties with five countries need us to intervene on their behalf for a "vile" act, who is at fault? Us, them, or both?
Both. You most likely have the means toward preventing them from launching certain missions; additionally, knowing what kind of country you'd cooperate with beforehand counts in the judgement of you. If you were to establish a treaty, hypothetically, with a country known to have been on the offence, has plans to expand its territory etc., then you are too at fault for supporting it in a potential war.
Mirza
Posts: 16,992
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/5/2015 5:04:26 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 8/5/2015 4:58:34 PM, Khaos_Mage wrote:
At 8/5/2015 4:38:30 PM, Mirza wrote:
By the way, I have a feeling you would really enjoy this guy.

http://www.mikemalloy.com...
I'll check him out.
Khaos_Mage
Posts: 23,214
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/5/2015 5:26:21 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 8/5/2015 5:04:09 PM, Mirza wrote:

If our treaties with five countries need us to intervene on their behalf for a "vile" act, who is at fault? Us, them, or both?
Both. You most likely have the means toward preventing them from launching certain missions; additionally, knowing what kind of country you'd cooperate with beforehand counts in the judgement of you. If you were to establish a treaty, hypothetically, with a country known to have been on the offence, has plans to expand its territory etc., then you are too at fault for supporting it in a potential war.

True, but look at the Iraq War. Say what you want about it, but others aided our efforts. Why? Our reports were based or confirmed by the Brits. So, assume the best case and assume that the information used to justify military operation is valid and true- are we to blame if others convince us the military effort is justified? If not, than 40 countries are at fault for the Iraq war, not just the US.
"(the United Kingdom, Australia, Poland, Spain, Portugal, and Denmark), and 33 provided some number of troops to support the occupation after the invasion was complete."
https://en.wikipedia.org...
My work here is, finally, done.
Mirza
Posts: 16,992
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/5/2015 5:33:24 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 8/5/2015 5:26:21 PM, Khaos_Mage wrote:
True, but look at the Iraq War. Say what you want about it, but others aided our efforts. Why? Our reports were based or confirmed by the Brits. So, assume the best case and assume that the information used to justify military operation is valid and true- are we to blame if others convince us the military effort is justified? If not, than 40 countries are at fault for the Iraq war, not just the US.
"(the United Kingdom, Australia, Poland, Spain, Portugal, and Denmark), and 33 provided some number of troops to support the occupation after the invasion was complete."
https://en.wikipedia.org...
Those countries were utterly insignificant. America would have gone in no matter what, and even your most modern military strategy report outlines that you will do anything necessary to protect and advance your interests, even if nobody else supports you. As for the report, we know fully well what reasons the government of yours had for going in Iraq. An article for you: http://www.theatlantic.com...